Goldwin Smith ! m m ^/~c^f^c LONDON* : PKIKTKD BY 8FOTT18WOOOE AND CO., NKVV-BTHKET SQUAllrf AND PARLIAMBNT KT11KET THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS THE MESSIAH BY ALFKED EDERSHEIM, M,A.OxoN., D.D., PH.D. WABBUBTONIAN LECTUBEB AT LINCOLN'S INN yap aprt Si ccroTrrpov Iv aivi IN TWO VOLUMES— VOL. II. NEW YORK ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH AND CO. 900 BROADWAY, CORNER OF 20TH STREET LONDON LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO, CONTENTS or THE SECOND VOLUME. BOOK ILL— continued. THE ASCENT: FROM THE RIVER JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. CHAPTER XXXI. PAGE The Cavils of the Pharisees concerning Purification, and the Teaching of the Lord concerning Purity — The Traditions concerning ' Hand-washing ' and ' Vows' 8 CHAPTER XXXII. The Great Crisis in Popular Feeling — The Last Discourses in the Synagogue of Capernaum — Christ the Bread of Life — * Will ye also go away ? ' .25 CHAPTER XXXIII. Jesus and the Syro-Phcenician Woman , . . . .37 CHAPTER XXXIV. A Group of Miracles among a Semi-Heathen Population . . .44 CHAPTER XXXV. The Two Sabbath Controversies— The Plucking of the Ears of Corn by the Disciples, and the Healing of the Man with the Withered Hand . . 51 CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. CHAPTER XXXVI. PAGE The Feeding of the Four Thousand— To Dalmanutha— < The Sign from Heaven '—Journey to Caesarea Philippi— What is the Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees ? . . .03 CHAPTER XXXVII. The Great Confession— The Great Commission— The Great Instruction— The Great Temptation— The Great Decision . . . . . 72 BOOK IV. THE DESCENT: FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION AND DEATH. CHAPTER I. The Transfiguration . . . . . . . .91 CHAPTER II. On the Morrow of the Transfiguration ...... 102 CHAPTER III. The Last Events in Galilee— The Tribute-Money, the Dispute by the Way, the Forbidding of him who could not follow with the Disciples, and the Consequent Teaching of Christ . . . 110 CHAPTER IV. The Journey to Jerusalem— Chronological Arrangement of the Last Part of the Gospel Narratives— First Incidents by the Way . . .126 CHAPTER V. Further Incidents of the Journey to Jerusalem— The Mission and Return of the Seventy— The Home at Bethany— Martha and Mary . . , 135 CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. vii CHAPTER VI. PA OK At the Feast of Tabernacles — First Discourse in the Temple . . .148 CHAPTER VII. ' In the Last, the Great Day of the Feast ' . . . . .156 CHAPTER VIII. Teaching in the Temple on the Octave of the Feast of Tabernacles . . 164 CHAPTER IX. The Healing of the Man born Blind .... .177 CHAPTER X. The ' Good Shepherd ' and His ' One Flock ' — Last Discourse at the Feast of Tabernacles . . . . . . . . .188 CHAPTER XI. The First Perse an Discourses — To the Pharisees concerning the Two King- doms— Their Contest — What qualifies a Disciple for that of God, and how Israel was becoming Subject to that of Evil .... 195 CHAPTER XII. The Morning Meal in the Pharisee's House — Meals and Feasts among the Jews — Christ's Last Peraean Warning to Pharisaism . . . 204 CHAPTER XIII. To the Disciples — Two Events and their Morals .... 214 CHAPTER XIV. • At the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple « . • 226 CHAPTER XV. The Second Series of Parables — The Two Parables of him who is Neighbour to us : The First, concerning the Love that, Unasked, gives in our Need ; The Second, concerning the Love which is elicited by our asking in our Need. . 233 viii CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. CHAPTER XVI. PAGB The Three Parables of Warning : To the Individual, to the Nation, and to the Theocracy— The Foolish Rich Man— The Barren Fig-Tree— The Great Supper ' . 243 CHAPTER XVII. The Three Parables of the Gospel : Of the Recovery of the Lost— Of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Drachm, the Lost Son .... 253 CHAPTER XVIII. The Unjust Steward — Dives and Lazarus — Jewish Agricultural Notes — Prices of Produce — Writing and Legal Documents — Purple and Fine Linen — Jewish Notions of Hades ....... 264 CHAPTER XIX. The Three Last Parables of the Persean Series : The Unrighteous Judge — The Self-Righteous Pharisee and the Publican— The Unmerciful Servant . 284 CHAPTER XX. Christ's Discourses in Persea — Close of the Peraean Ministry . . . 298 CHAPTER XXI. The Death and the Raising of Lazarus— The Question of Miracles and of this Miracle of Miracles — Views of Negative Criticism on this History — Jewish Burying-Rites and Sepulchres ...... 308 CHAPTER XXII. On the Journey to Jerusalem — Departure from Ephraim by Way of Samaria and Galilee— Healing of Ten Lepers— Prophetic Discourse of the Coming Kingdom— On Divorce: Jewish Views of it— The Blessing to Little Children ..... 327 CHAPTER XXIII. The Last Incidents in Persea— The Young Ruler who went away Sorrowful —To Leave All for Christ— Prophecy of His Passion— The Request of Salome, and of James and John . . 333 CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. IX CHAPTER XXIV. PAGE In Jericho and at Bethany — Jericho — A Guest with Zacchseus — The Healing of Blind Bartimseus — The Plot at Jerusalem — At Bethany, and in the House of Simon the Leper ....... 349 BOOK V. THE CROSS AND THE CROWN. CHAPTER I. The First Day in Passion- Week — Palm Sunday — The Royal Entry into Jeru- salem . . . . . . . . .363 CHAPTER II. The Second Day in Passion- Week — The Barren Fig-Tree— The Cleansing of the Temple— The Hosanna of the Children .... 374 CHAPTER III. The Third Day in Passion- Week— The Events of that Day— The Question of Christ's Authority— The Question of Tribute to Csesar— The Widow's Farthing — The Greeks who Sought to See Jesus — Summary and Retro- spect of the Public Ministry of Christ ..... 380 CHAPTER IV. The Third Day in Passion- Week — The Last Controversies and Discourses — The Sadducees and the Resurrection — The Scribe and the Great Com- mandment— Question to the Pharisees about David's Son and Lord — Final Warning to the People : The Eight < Woes ' — Farewell . . 396 CHAPTER V. The Third Day in Passion- Week— The Last Series of Parables: To the Pharisees and to the People — On the Way to Jerusalem : The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard — In -the Temple : The Parable of the ' No ' and « Yes ' of the Two Sons— The Parable of the Evil Husbandmen Evilly Destroyed — The Parable of the Marriage of the King's Son and of the Wedding Garment ........ 415 CHAPTER VI. The Evening of the Third Day in Passion- Week— On the Mount of Olives : Discourse to the Disciples concerning the Last Things . . . 431 VOL. II. a X CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. CHAPTER VII. PAGK Evening of the Third Day in Passion- Week— On the Mount of Olives— Last Parables : To the Disciples concerning the Last Things — The Parable of the Ten Virgins — The Parable of the Talents — Supplementary Parable of the Minas and the King's Reckoning with His Servants and His Rebellious Citizens ......... 453 CHAPTER VIII. The Fourth Day in Passion Week — Jesus in His Last Sabbatic Rest before His Agony, and the Sanhedrists in their Unrest — The Betrayal — Judas : His Character, Apostasy, and End ...... 468 CHAPTER IX. The Fifth Day in Passion- Week— < Make Ready the Passover ! ' . . 479 CHAPTER X. The Paschal Supper— The Institution of the Lord's Supper . . . 490 CHAPTER XI. The Last Discourse of Christ — The Prayer of Consecration . . .512 CHAPTER XII. Gethsemane ......... 532 CHAPTER XIII. Thursday Night — Before Annas and Caiaphas — Peter and Jesus . . 545 CHAPTER XIV The Morning of Good Friday ....... 564 CHAPTER XV. ' Crucified, Dead, and Buried ' . . . . . . 580 CHAPTER XVI. On the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead ..... 619 CHAPTER XVII. On the Third Day He rose again from the Dead ; He ascended into Heaven ' 628 CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. XI APPENDICES. APPENDIX I. PAGE Pseudepigraphic Writings ....... 653 APPENDIX II. Philo of Alexandria and Rabbinic Theology . . . . .657 APPENDIX III. Rabbinic Views as to the Lawfulness of Images, Pictorial Representations on Coins, &c 663 APPENDIX IV. An Abstract of Jewish History from the Reign of Alexander the Great to the Accession of Herod ....... 665 APPENDIX V. Rabbinic Theology and Literature ...... 681 APPENDIX VI. List of the Maccabees, of the Family of Herod, of the High-Priests, the Roman Procurators of Judaea, and Roman Governors of Syria . . 698 APPENDIX VII. On the Date of the Nativity of our Lord ..... 701 APPENDIX VIII. Rabbinical Traditions about Elijah, the Forerunner of the Messiah . . 703 APPENDIX IX. List of Old Testament Passages Messianically Applied in Ancient Rabbinic Writings ......... 707 APPENDIX X. On the Supposed Temple-Synagogue ...... 739 xii CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. APPENDIX XI. PAGE On the Prophecy, Is. xl. 3 . 741 APPENDIX XII. On the Baptism of Proselytes . . .742 APPENDIX XIII. Jewish Angelology and Demonology— The Fall of the Angels . . 745 APPENDIX XIV. The Law in Messianic Times . . .761 APPENDIX XV. The Location of Sychar, and the Date of Our Lord's Visit to Samaria . 764 APPENDIX XVI. On the Jewish Views about ' Demons ' and the ' Demonised/ together with some Notes on the Intercourse between Jews and Jewish Christians in the First Centuries ........ 767 APPENDIX XVII. The Ordinances and Law of the Sabbath as laid down in the Mishnah and the Jerusalem Talmud ........ 774 APPENDIX XVIII. Haggadah about Simeon Chepha (Legend of Simon Peter) . . 785 APPENDIX XIX. On Eternal Punishment, according to the Rabbis and the New Testament . 788 INDEX I. OF SUBJECTS ....... 795 INDEX II. OP PASSAGES FROM THE FOUR GOSPELS REFERRED TO IN THESE VOLUMES ... .811 BOOK III. THE ASCENT: FKOM THE KIVEE JOEDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TKANSFEGURATION -c Ber. E. si hour of need a vow ; in time of ease excess.' b Towards such work- righteousness and religious gambling the Eastern, and especially the Rabbinic Jew, would be particularly inclined. But even the Rabbis saw that its encouragement would lead to the profanation of what was holy; to rash, idle, and wrong vows; and to the worst and most demoralising kind of perjury, as inconvenient consequences made themselves felt. Of many sayings, condemnatory of the practice, one will suffice to mark the general feeling : < He who makes a vow, even if he keep it, deserves the name of wicked.'0 Nevertheless, the practice must have attained terrible proportions, whether as regards the number of vows, the lightness with which they were made, or the kind of things which became their object. The larger part of the Mishnic Tractate on ' Vows ' (Nedarim, in eleven chapters) describes what expressions were to be regarded as equivalent to vows, and what would either legally invalidate and annul a vow, or leave it binding. And here we learn, that those who were of full age, and not in a position of dependence (such as wives) would make almost any kind of vows, such as that they would not lie down to sleep, not speak to their wives or children, not have intercourse with their brethren, and even things more wrong or foolish — all of which were solemnly treated as binding on the con- science. Similarly, it was not necessary to use the express words of vowing. Not only the word ' Korban ' — ' given to Grod ' — but any similar expression, such as Konack, or Konam l (the latter probably an equivalent for ' Let it be established ! ') would suffice ; the mention of anything laid upon the altar (though not of the altar itself), such as the wood, or the fire, would constitute a vow,d nay, the repetition «Nedar.9a 22 a d Nedar. i. 1-3 1 According to Nedar. 10 a, the Rabbis invented this word instead of ' Korlan to the Lord' (Lev. i. 2), in order that the Name of God might not be idly taken. THE RABBINIC ORDINANCES CONCERNING VOWS. 19 of the form which generally followed on the votive Konam or Korban CHAP. had binding force, even though not preceded by these terms. Thus, xxxi if a man said : ' That I eat or taste of such a thing,' it constituted a vow, which bound him not to eat or taste it, because the common formula was : ' Korban (or Konam) that I eat or drink, or do such a thing,' and the omission of the votive word did not invalidate a vow, if it were otherwise regularly expressed.51 a Jer. 0 J r Nedar. 36 rf, It is in explaining this strange provision, intended both to uphold l™ 20 f*0™ the solemnity of vows, and to discourage the rash use of words, that the Talmud b makes use of the word ' hand ' in a connection which b u- s- we have supposed might, by association of ideas, have suggested to Christ the contrast between what the Bible and what the Rabbis regarded as ' sanctified hands,' and hence between the commands of God and the traditions of the Elders. For the Talmud explains that, when a man simply says : ' That (or if) I eat or taste such a thing,' it is imputed as a vow, he may not eat nor taste of it, ' be- cause the hand is on the Korban ' c — the mere touch of Korban had T DE>D c sanctified it, and put it beyond his reach, just as if it had been laid on the altar itself. Here, then, was a contrast. According to the Rabbis, the touch of ' a common ' hand defiled God's good gift of meat, while the touch of ( a sanctified ' hand in rash or wicked words might render it impossible to give anything to a parent, and so involve the grossest breach of the Fifth Commandment! Such, according to Rabbinic Law, was the ' common ' and such the ' sanctify- ing' touch of the hands — and did such traditionalism not truly 4 make void the Word of God ' ? A few further particulars may serve to set this in clearer light. It must not be thought that the pronunciation of the votive word * Korban,7 although meaning ' a gift,' or * given to God,' necessarily •dedicated a thing to the Temple. The meaning might simply be, and generally was, that it was to be regarded like Korban — that is, that in regard to the person or persons named, the thing termed was to be considered as if it were Korban, laid on the altar, and put •entirely out of their reach. For, although included under the one name, there were really two kinds of vows : those of consecration to God, and those of personal obligation l — and the latter were the most frequent. To continue. The legal distinction between a vow, an oath, and 4 the ban,' are clearly marked both in reason and in Jewish Law. The oath was an absolute, the vow a conditional undertaking — their 1 See Maimonides, Yad haChas., Hilc. Nedar. i. 1, 2. o 2 20 FKOM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III vh Jer. Ned. "Tos. Arach. iv. difference being marked even by this, that the language of a vow ran thus : ' That ' or ' if ' ' I or another do such a thing,' < if I eat ; ' a while that of the oath was a simple affirmation or negation ,b f I shall not eat.'c On the other hand, the ' ban ' might refer to one of three things : those dedicated for the use of the priesthood, those dedicated to Grod, or else to a sentence pronounced by the Sanhedrin.d In any case it was not lawful to * ban. ' the whole of one's property, nor even one class of one's property (such as all one's sheep), nor yet what could not, in the fullest sense, be called one's property, such as a child, a Hebrew slave, or a purchased field, which had to be restored in the Year of Jubilee ; while an inherited field, if banned, would go in perpetuity for the use of the priesthood. Similarly, the Law limited vows. Those intended to incite to an act (as on the part of one who sold a thing), or by way of exaggeration, or in cases of mistake, and, lastly, vows which circumstances rendered impossible, were declared null. To these four classes the Mishnah added those made to escape murder, robbery, and the exactions of the publican, If a vow was regarded as rash or wrong, attempts were made e door^°pena to open a door for repentance/ Absolutions from a vow might be 'Nedar. ix. obtained before a* sage,' or, in his absence, before three laymen,1 when all obligations became null and void. At the same time the Mishnah g admits, that this power of absolving from vows was a tradition hanging, as it were, in the air,2 since it received little (or, as Maimonides puts it, no) support from Scripture.3 There can be no doubt, that the words of Christ referred to such vows of personal obligation. By these a person might bind himself in regard to men or things, or else put that which was another's out of his own reach, or that which was his own out of the reach of another, and this as completely as if the thing or things had been Korban, a gift given to God. Thus, by simply saying, ' Konam,' or 4 Korban, that by which I might be profited by thee,' a person bound himself never to touch, taste, or have anything that belonged to the person so addressed. Similarly, by saying ' Korban, that by which thou mightest be profited by me,' he would prevent the person so- addressed from ever deriving any benefit from that which belonged passim K Chag. i. 8 1 Maimonides u. s. Hilc. Shev. vi. 1. 2 This is altogether a very curious Mishnah. It adds to the remark quoted in the text this other significant admis- sion, that the laws about the Sabbath, festive offerings, and the malversation of things devoted to God ' are like moun- tains hanging by one hair,' since Scrip- ture is scant on these subjects, while the traditional Laws are many. 3 On the subject of Vows see also 'The Temple and its Services,' pp. 322-326, The student should consult Siphre, Par. Mattoth, pp. 55 b to 58 &. POSSIBLE CONFLICT WITH THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT. 21 to him. And so stringent was the ordinance, that (almost in the CHAP. words of Christ) it is expressly stated that such a vow was binding, xxxi even if what was vowed involved a breach of the Law.a It cannot be • Nedar. its denied that such vows, in regard to parents, would be binding, and that they were actually made.1 Indeed, the question is discussed in the Mishnah in so many words, whether ' honour of father and mother ' b constituted a ground for invalidating a vow, and decided ^ "1 V in the negative against a solitary dissenting voice.0 And if doubt c Nea. ix. i should still exist, a case is related in the Mishnah,d in which a father d Nedar. v. e was thus shut out by the vow of his son from anything by which he might be profited by him (n^p -I^D T?» ^ '"ITW>2 Thus the charge brought by Christ is in fullest accordance with the facts of the case. More than this, the manner in which it is put by St. Mark shows the most intimate knowledge of Jewish customs and law. For, the seemingly inappropriate addition to our Lord's mention of the Fifth Commandment of the words : * He that revileth father or mother, he shall (let him) surely die,'6 is not only explained but eEx.xxi.i7 vindicated by the common usage of the Kabbis,3 to mention along with a command the penalty attaching to its breach, so as to indicate the importance which Scripture attached to it. On the other hand, the words of St. Mark: < Korban (that is to say, gift [viz., to Grod]) that by which thou mightest be profited by me,' are a most exact transcription into Greek of the common formula of vowing, as given in the Mishnah and Talmud (^ njga nriN£> Ifli?).4 But Christ did not merely show the hypocrisy of the system of traditionalism in conjoining in the name of religion the greatest outward punctiliousness with the grossest breach of real duty. Never, alas ! was that aspect of prophecy, which in the present saw the future, more clearly vindicated than as the words of Isaiah to Israel now appeared in their final fulfilment : ' This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Howbeit, in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of 1 I can only express surprise, that and confirmed — implying, that in no cir- WunscJie should throw doubt upon it. cumstances could a parent partake of It is fully admitted by Levy, Targ. anything belonging to his son, if he had Worterb. sub p">p. pronounced such a vow, the only relaxa- 2 In this case the son, desirous that tion being that in case of actual starvation his father should share in the festivities (' if he have not what to eat ') the son might at his marriage, proposed to give to a make a present to a third person, when friend the court in which the banquet the father might in turn receive of it. was to be held and the banquet itself, 3 Comp. WunscJie, ad loc. but only for the purpose that his father * Other translations have been pro- might eat and drink with him. The posed, but the above is taken from Nedar. proposal was refused as involving sin, viii. 7, with the change only of Konam and the question afterwards discussed into Korban. FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III » St. Matt, xv. 10; 14 men.' l But in thus setting forth for the first time the real character of traditionalism, and setting Himself in open opposition to its fun- damental principles, the Christ enunciated also for the first time the fundamental principle of His own interpretation of the Law. That Law was not a system of externalism, in which outward things affected the inner man. It was moral, and addressed itself to man as a moral being — to his heart and conscience. As the spring of all moral action was within, so the mode of affecting it would be inward. Not from without inwards, but from within outwards : such was the principle of the new Kingdom, as setting forth the Law in its ful- ness and fulfilling it. ' There is nothing from without the 2 man, that, entering into him, can defile him ; but the things which pro- ceed out of the man, those are they that defile the 2 man.' 3 Not only negatively, but positively, was this the fundamental principle of Christian practice in direct contrast to that of Pharisaic Judaism. It is in this essential contrariety of principle, rather than in any details, that the unspeakable difference between Christ and all con- temporary teachers appears. Nor is even this all. For, the principle laid down by Christ concerning that which entereth from without and that which cometh from within, covers, in its full application, not only the principle of Christian liberty in regard to the Mosaic Law, but touches far deeper and eternal questions, affecting not only the Jew, but all men and to all times. As we read it, the discussion, to which such full reference has been made, had taken place between the Scribes and the Lord, while the multitude perhaps stood aside. But when enunciating the grand principle of what constituted real defilement, ' He called to Him the multitude.' a It was probably while pursuing their way to Caper- naum, when this conversation had taken place, that His disciples after- wards reported, that the Pharisees had been offended by that saying of His to the multitude. Even this implies the weakness of the disciples : that they were not only influenced by the good or evil opinion of these religious leaders of the people, but in some measure sympathised with their views. All this is quite natural, and, as bringing before us real not imaginary persons, so far evidential of the narrative. The answer which the Lord gave the disciples bore a twofold aspect: that of solemn warning concerning the inevitable fate of every plant which God had not planted, and that of warning 1 The quotation is a « Targum,' which in the last clause follows almost entirely the LXX. 2 Mark the definite article. 3 The words in St. Mark vii. 16 are of very doubtful authenticity. FROM WITHIN OUTWARDS, NOT FROM WITHOUT INWARDS. 23 concerning the character and issue of Pharisaic teaching, as being CHAP. the leadership of the blind by the blind,1 which must end in ruin to xxxi both. But even so the words of Christ are represented in the Gospel as sounding strange and difficult to the disciples — so truthful and natural is the narrative. But they were earnest, genuine men ; and when they reached the home in Capernaum, Peter, as the most courageous of them, broke the reserve — half of fear and half of reverence — which, despite their necessary familiarity, seems to have subsisted between the Master and His disciples. And the existence of such reverential reserve in such circumstances appears, the more it is considered, yet another evidence of Christ's Divine Character, just as the implied allusion to it in the narrative is another undesigned proof of its truthfulness. And so Peter would seek for himself and his fellow- disciples an explanation of what still seemed to him only parabolic in the Master's teaching. He received it in the fullest manner. There was, indeed, one part even in the teaching of the Lord, which accorded with the higher views of the Eabbis. Those sins which Christ set before them as sins of the outward and inward man,2 and of what connects the two : our relation to others, were the outcome of c evil thoughts.' And this, at least, the Eabbis also taught ; ex- plaining, with much detail, how the heart was alike the source of strength and of weakness, of good and of evil thoughts, loved and hated, envied, lusted and deceived, proving each statement from Scripture.* But never before could they have realised, that anything ^g- °n16 entering from without could not defile^a man. Least of all could they perceive the final inference which St. Mark long afterwards derived from this teaching of the Lord : « This He said, making all meats clean.' b 3 1 Both these sayings seem to have been \vords,first propounded by St. Chrysostom, proverbial at the time, although I am and now adopted in the Revised Ver- not able to quote any passage in Jewish sion, although not without much mis- writings in which they occur in exactly giving. For there is strong objection to it the same form. from the Jewish usus and views. The 2 In St. Mark vii. 21 these outcomings statement in Ber. 61 a, last line, ' The of « evil thoughts ' are arranged in three oesophagus into which entereth and, groups of four, characterised as in the text; which casteth out all manner of meat while in St. Matt xv. 19 the order of the (t^b ^ fcj gw&1 D»MO DPI) ten commandments seems followed. The seems to imply that fhe mords of Christ account of St. Mark is the fuller. In both mere a proverUai expression. The Tal- accounts the expression 'blasphemy' mudic idea is based on the curious physio- (flAao^Tj/aa)— rendered in the Revised logical notion (Midr. on Eccles. vii. 19), Version by • railing '—seems to refer to that the f00d passed from the oesophagus calumnious and evil speaking about our first into the larger intestine (H0m*es, fellow-men. DDDH, perhaps = omavum), where the 3 I have accepted this rendering of the food was supposed to be crushed as in a 24 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK Yet another time had Peter to learn that lesson, when his resist- in ance to the teaching of the vision of the sheet let down from heaven was silenced by this : ' What (rod hath cleansed, make not thou • Acts x. 14 common.' a Not only the spirit of legalism, but the very terms ' common ' (in reference to the unwashen hands) and * making clean ' are the same. Nor can we wonder at this, if the vision of Peter was real, and not, as negative criticism would have it, invented so as to make an imaginary Peter — Apostle of the Jews — speak and act like Paul. On that hypothesis, the correspondence of thought and ex- pression would seem, indeed, inexplicable ; on the former, the Peter, who has had that vision, is telling through St. Mark the teaching that underlay it all, and, as he looked back upon it, drawing from it the inference which he understood not at the time : ' This He said, making all meats clean.' A most difficult lesson this for a Jew, and for one like Peter, nay, for us all, to learn. And still a third time had Peter to learn it, when, in his fear of the Judaisers from Jerusalem, he made that common which God had made clean, had care of the unwashen hands, but forgot that the Lord had made clean all meats. Terrible, indeed, must have been that contention which followed between Paul and Peter. Eighteen centuries have passed, and that fatal strife is still the ground of theological contention against the truth.1 Eighteen centuries, and within the Church also the strife still con- tinues. Brethren sharply contend and are separated, because they will insist on that as of necessity which should be treated as of in- difference : because of the not eating with unwashen hands, forget- ful that He has made all meats clean to him who is inwardly and spiritually cleansed. mill (Vajjik K. 4 ; 18 ; Midr. on Eccl. Eabbinic Apliidra (KVPB&O, which xii. 3), and thence only, through various Levy renders by ' the floor of a stable organs, into the stomach proper. (As re- formed by the excrements of the animals gards the process in animals, see Lemy- which are soaked and stamped into a sohn, Zool. d. Talm. pp. 37-40.) (The hard mass.' passage from Ber. 61 a has been so * It is, of course, well known that the rendered by Wiinscke, in his note on St. reasoning of the Tubingen school and of Matt. xv. 17, as to be in parts well nigh kindred negative theology is based on a unintelligible.) It may interest students supposed contrariety between the Pe trine that the strange word aQtSpwv, rendered and Pauline direction, and that this both in the A. V. and the E. V. by again is chiefly based on the occurrence * draught,' seems to correspond to the in Antioch recorded in Gal. ii. 11 &c. THE GREAT CRISIS IN POPULAR FEELING. 25 CHAPTER XXXII. THE GREAT CRISIS IN POPULAR FEELING — THE LAST DISCOURSES IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF CAPERNAUM — CHRIST THE BREAD OF LIFE — * WILL YE ALSO GO AWAY 1 ' (St. John vi. 22-71.)1 THE narrative now returns to those who, on the previous evening, CHAP. had, after the miraculous meal, been ' sent away ' to their homes, xxxn We remember, that this had been after an abortive attempt on their * ' ' part to take Jesus by force and make Him their Messiah-King. We can understand how the effectual resistance of Jesus to their purpose not only weakened, but in great measure neutralised, the effect of the miracle which they had witnessed. In fact, we look upon this check as the first turning of the tide of popular enthusiasm. Let us bear in mind what ideas and expectations of an altogether external character those men connected with the Messiah of their dreams. At last, by some miracle more not-able even than the giving of the Manna in the wilderness, enthusiasm had been raised to the highest pitch, and thousands were determined to give up their pilgrimage to the Passover, and then and there proclaim the Galilean Teacher Israel's King. If He were the Messiah, such was His right- ful title. Why then did He so strenuously and effectually resist it ? In ignorance of His real views concerning the Kingship, they would naturally conclude that it must have been from fear, from misgiving, from want of belief in Himself. At any rate, He could not be the Messiah, Who would not be Israel's King. Enthusiasm of this kind, once repressed, could never be kindled again. Henceforth there was continuous misunderstanding, doubt, and defection among former adherents, growing into opposition and hatred unto death. Even to those who took not this position, Jesus, His Words and Works, were henceforth a constant mystery.2 And so it came, that the morn- 1 It is specially requested, that this of the fate of Elijah on the morning chapter be read along with the text of after the miracle on Mount Carmel. Yet Scripture. how different the bearing of Christ from 8 We are here involuntarily reminded that of ths great Prophet 1 26 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK in vv. 22, 24 *> St. John vi. 53-58 d vi. 25-65 • w. 25-36 f W. 41-52 ing after the miraculous meal found the vast majority of those who had been fed, either in their homes or on their pilgrim-way to the Passover at Jerusalem. Only comparatively few came back to seek Him, where they had eaten bread at His Hand. And even to them, as the after-conversation shows, Jesus was a mystery. They could not disbelieve, and yet they could not believe ; and they sought both ' a sign ' to guide, and an explanation to give them its understand- ing. Yet out of them was there such selection of grace, that all that the Father had given would reach Him, and that they who, by a personal act of believing choice and by determination of con- viction, would come, should in nowise be rejected of Him. It is this view of the mental and moral state of those who, on the morning after the meal, came to seek Jesus, which alone explains the questions and answers of the interview at Capernaum. As we read it : ; the day following, the multitude which stood on the other [the eastern] side of the sea ' ' saw that Jesus was not there, neither His disciples.' a But of two facts they were cognisant. They knew that, on the evening before, only one boat had come over, bringing Jesus and His disciples ; and that Jesus had not returned in it with His disciples, for they had seen them depart, while Jesus remained to dismiss the people. In these circumstances they probably imagined, that Christ had returned on foot by land, being, of course, ignorant of the miracle of that night. But the wind which had been contrary to the disciples, had also driven over to the eastern shore a number of fishing-boats from Tiberias (and this is one of the undesigned confirmations of the narrative). These they now hired, and came to Capernaum, making inquiry for Jesus. Whether on that Friday afternoon they went to meet Him on His way from Grennesaret (which the wording of St. John vi. 25 makes likely), or awaited His arrival at Capernaum, is of little importance. Similarly, it is diffi- cult to determine whether the conversation and outlined address of Christ took place on one or partly on several occasions : on the Friday afternoon and Sabbath morning, or only on the Sabbath. All that we know for certain is, that the last part (at any rate b) was spoken ' in Synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum.' c It has been well observed, that ' there are evident breaks after verse 40 and verse 5 1.'1 Probably the succession of events may have been, that part of what is here recorded by St. John d had taken place when those from across the Lake had first met Jesus ; e part on the way to, and entering, the Synagogue ; f and part as what He spoke in His 1 Westcott, ad loc. POPULAR MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE MIRACLE OF FEEDING. 27 Discourse,* and then after the defection of some of His former dis- CHAP. ciples.b But we can only suggest such an arrangement, since it xxxn would have been quite consistent with Jewish practice, that the »w. 52-53 greater part should have taken place in the Synagogue itself, the bv7-61-65 Jewish questions and objections representing either an irregular running commentary on His Words, or expressions during breaks in, or at the conclusion of, His teaching. This, however, is a primary requirement, that, what Christ is reported to have spoken, should appear suited to His hearers : such as would appeal to what they knew, such also as they could understand. This must be kept in view, even while admitting that the Evangelist wrote his Grospel in the light of much later and fuller knowledge, and for the instruction of the Christian Church, and that there may be breaks and omissions in the reported, as compared with the original Discourse, which, if supplied, would make its understanding much easier to a Jew. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind all the circumstances of the case. The Discourse in question was delivered in the city, which had been the scene of so many of Christ's great miracles, and the centre of His teaching, and in the Synagogue, built by the good Centurion, and of which Jairus was the chief ruler. Here we have the outward and inward conditions for even the most advanced teaching of Christ. Again, it was delivered under twofold moral conditions, to which we may expect the Discourse of Christ to be adapted. For, first, it was after that miraculous feeding which had raised the popular enthusiasm to the highest pitch, and also after that chilling disappointment of their Judaistic hopes in Christ's utmost resistance to His Messianic proclamation. They now came c seeking for Jesus,' in every sense of the word. They knew not what to make of those, to them, contradictory and irreconcilable facts; they came, because they did eat of the loaves, without seeing in them ' signs.' c And therefore they came for such a ' sign ' c ver. 26 as they could perceive, and for such teaching in interpretation of it as they could understand. They were outwardly — by what had happened — prepared for the very highest teaching, to which the preceding events had led up, and therefore they must receive such, if any. But they were not inwardly prepared for it, and therefore they could not understand it. Secondly, and in connection with it, we must remember that two high points had been reached — by the people, that Jesus was the Messiah-King ; by the ship's company, that He was the Son of (rod. However imperfectly these truths may have been apprehended, yet the teaching of Christ, if it was to be pro- 28 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK gressive, muse start from them, and then point onwards and upwards. in In this expectation we shall not be disappointed. And if. by the side of all this, we shall find allusions to peculiarly Jewish thoughts and views, these will not only confirm the Evangelic narrative, but furnish additional evidence of the Jewish authorship of the Fourth Gospel. viSt25-29n 1 ' ^e shabb. fields their harvests : b the grain was to stand like palm trees, and to 306;Jer. IT- 1-1 i i oc -i 11 shekai. vi. 2 be reaped and winnowed without labour.0 similar blessings were to nCih6thub' visit the vine ; ordinary trees would bear like fruit trees, and. every produce, of every clime, would be found in Palestine in such abundance and luxuriance as only the wildest imagination could conceive. Such were the carnal thoughts about the Messiah and His Kingdom of those who sought Jesus because they ' ate of the loaves, and were filled.' What a contrast between them and the Christ, as He pointed them from the search for such meat to ' work for the meat which He would give them,' not as merely a Jewish Messiah, but as 4 the Son of Man.' And yet, in uttering this strange truth, Jesus could appeal to something they knew when He added, ' for Him the Father hath sealed, even God.' The words, which seem almost inexplicable in 1 Canon Westcott notes the intended ally, " were satisfied with food as animals realism in the choice of words : ' Liter- with fodder " ' — IN THE SYNAGOGUE AT CAPERNAUM. 29 this connection, become clear when we remember that this was a CHAP. well-known Jewish expression. According to the Kabbis, ' the seal xxxn of God was Truth (AeMceTH),' the three letters of which this word is composed in Hebrew (nox) being, as was significantly pointed out, respectively the first, the middle, and the last letters of the alphabets Thus the words of Christ would convey to His hearers aJer.sanh. 18 a ; Ber. that for the real meat, which would endure to eternal life — for the R- 81 better Messianic banquet — they must come to Him, because God had impressed upon Him His own seal of truth, and so authenticated His Teaching and Mission. In passing, we mark this as a Jewish allusion, which only a Jewish writer (not an Ephesian Gospel) would have recorded. But it is by no means the only one. It almost seems like a sudden gleam of light — as if they were putting their hand to this Divine Seal, when they now ask Him what they must do, in order to work the Works of God ? Yet strangely refracted seems this ray of light, when they connect the Works of God with their own doing. And Christ directed them, as before, only more clearly, to Himself. To work the Works of God they must not do, but believe in Him. Whom God had sent. Their twofold error consisted in imagining, that they could work the Works of God, and this by some doing of their own. On the other hand, Christ would have taught them that these Works of God were independent of man, and that they would be achieved through man's faith in the Mission of the Christ. 2. As it impresses itself on our minds, what now follows b took bst. John place at a somewhat different time — perhaps on the way to the Synagogue. It is a remarkable circumstance, that among the ruins of the Synagogue of Capernaum the lintel has been discovered, and that it bears the device of a pot of manna, ornamented with a flowing pattern of vine leaves and clusters of grapes.1 Here then were the outward emblems, which would connect themselves with the Lord's teaching on that day. The miraculous feeding of the multitude in the c desert place ' the evening before, and the Messianic thoughts which clustered around it, would naturally suggest to their minds remembrance of the manna. That manna, which was Angels' food, distilled (as they imagined) from the upper light, 'the dew from above ' c — miraculous food, of all manner of taste, and suited to every e Yoma 75 b age, according to the wish or condition of him who ate it,d but bitter- * shem. n. ness to Gentile palates — they expected the Messiah to bring again from heaven. For, all that the first deliverer, Moses, had done, the 1 Comp. « Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' pp. 256, 257. FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. b Targ. Pseudo-Jon, on Deut. xxxiv. 8 ; Taan. 9 a Prov. ix. 5 d Shem. R. 25 e Comp. Chag. 14 a second — Messiah — would also do.a And here, over their Synagogue, was the pot of manna — symbol of what God had done, earnest of what the Messiah would do: that pot of manna, which was now among the things hidden, but which Elijah, when he came, would restore again ! Here, then, was a real sign. In their view the events of yester- day must lead up to some such sign, if they had any real meaning. They had been told to believe on Him, as the One authenticated by God with the seal of Truth, and Who would give them meat to eternal life. By what sign would Christ corroborate His assertion, that they might see and believe? What work would He do to vindicate His claim ? Their fathers had eaten manna in the wilder- ness. To understand the reasoning of the Jews, implied but not fully expressed, as also the answer of Jesus, it is necessary to bear in mind (what forms another evidence of the Jewish authorship of the Fourth Gospel), that it was the oft and most anciently expressed opinion that, although God had given them this bread out of heaven, yet it was given through the merits of Moses, and ceased with his death.b This the Jews had probably in view, when they asked : ' What workest Thou ? ' ; and this was the meaning of Christ's emphatic assertion, that it was not Moses who gave Israel that bread. And then by what, with all reverence, may still be designated a peculiarly Jewish turn of reasoning — such as only those familiar with Jewish literature can fully appreciate (and which none but a Jewish reporter would have inserted in his Gospel) — the Saviour makes quite different, yet to them familiar, application of the manna. Moses had not given it — his merits had not procured it — but His Father gave them the true bread out of heaven. * For,' as He explained, ' the bread of God is that1 which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.' Again, this very Rabbinic tradition, which described in such glowing language the wonders of that manna, also further explained its other and real meaning to be, that if Wisdom said, ' Eat of my bread and drink of my wine,'c it indicated that the manna and the miraculous water-supply were the sequence of Israel's receiving the Law and the Commandments d — for the real bread from heaven was the Law.6 2 1 Not as in the A. V. of ver. 33 : 'He Which cometh down from heaven.' The alteration is most important In the argu- ment as addressed to the Jews ; the one they could understand and would admit, not so the other. 2 In the Midrash on Eccl. ii. 24 ; iii. 12 ; viii. 15, we are told, that when in Ecclesiastes we read of eating and drink- ing, it always refers to the Law and good works. THE BREAD FROM HEAVEN. 31 It was an appeal which the Jews understood, and to which they CHAP. could not but respond. Yet the mood was brief. As Jesus, in xxxn answer to the appeal that He would evermore give them this bread, once more directed them to Himself — from works of men to the Works of God and to faith — the passing gleam of spiritual hope had already died out, for they had seen Him and e yet did not believe.' With these words of mingled sadness and judgment, Jesus turned away from His questioners. The solemn sayings which now followed a * fg^jjj11 could not have been spoken to, and they would not have been understood by, the multitude. And accordingly we find that, when the conversation of the Jews is once more introduced,1* it takes up b ver- 41 the thread where it had been broken off, when Jesus spake of Himself as the Bread Which had come down from heaven. Had they heard what, in our view, Jesus spake only to His disciples, their objections would have been to more than merely the incongruity of Christ's claim to have come down from heaven.1 3. Regarding these words of Christ, then, as addressed to the dis- ciples, there is really nothing in them beyond their standpoint, though they open views of the far horizon. They had the experience of the raising of the young man at Nain, and there, at Capernaum, of Jairus' daughter. Besides, believing that Jesus was the Messiah, it might perhaps not be quite strange nor new to them as Jews — although not commonly received — that He would at the end of the world raise the pious dead.2 Indeed, one of the names given to the Messiah — that of Jinnon, according to Ps. Ixxii. 17 c — has by some csanh.98& been derived from this very expectancy.d Again, He had said, that p^JJjfY" it was not any Law, but His Person, that was the bread which came PirkaaeR.' * Elies. 32, ed. down from heaven, and gave life, not to Jews only, but unto the Lemb.p.396 world — and they had seen Him and believed not. But none the less would the loving purpose of Grod be accomplished in the totality of His true people, and its joyous reality be experienced by every in- dividual among them : ' (The) All [the totality, irav o] which the Father giveth Me shall come unto Me [shall reach Me 3], and him that cometh unto Me [the coming one to Me] I will not cast out outside.' What follows is merely the carrying out in all directions, and to its fullest consequences, of this twofold fundamental principle. The totality of the God-given would really reach Him, despite all 1 After having arrived at this conclu- general, see vol. i. p. 633, where the ques- sion, I find that Canon Westcott has ex- tion of Jewish belief on that subject is pressed the same views, and I rejoice in discussed. being fortified by so great an authority. s So Canon Westcott. 2 But not here and there one dead. In 32 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK hindrances, for the object of His Coming was to do the Will of His in Father ; and those who came would not be cast outside, for the Will * • ' of Him that had sent Him, and which He had come to do, was that of ' the all which He has given ' Him, He ' should not lose anything out of this, but raise it up in the last day.' Again, the totality— the all — would reach Him, since it was the Will of Him that sent Him 'that everyone (iras) who intently looketh1 at the Son, and believeth on Him, should have eternal life;' and the coming ones would not be cast outside, since this was His undertaking and pro- mise as the Christ in regard to each : ' And raise him up will I at the last day.' Although these wonderful statements reached in their full mean- ing far beyond the present horizon of His disciples, and even to the utmost bounds of later revelation and Christian knowledge, there is nothing in them which would have seemed absolutely strange or un- intelligible to those who heard them. Given belief in the Messiah- ship of Jesus and His Mission by the Father ; given experience of what He had done, and perhaps, to a certain extent, Jewish ex- pectancy of what the Messiah would do in the last day ; and all this directed or corrected by the knowledge concerning His work which His teaching had imparted, and the words were intelligible and most suitable, even though they would not convey to them all that they mean to us. If so seemingly incongruous an illustration might be used, they looked through a telescope that was not yet drawn out, and saw the same objects, though quite diminutively and far otherwise than we, as gradually the hand of Time has drawn out fully that through which both they and we, who believe, intently gaze on the Son. 4. What now follows a is again spoken to ' the Jews,' and may have occurred just as they were entering the Synagogue. To those spiritually unenlightened, the point of difficulty .seemed, how Christ could claim to be the Bread come down from heaven. Making the largest allowance, His known parentage and early history 2 forbade anything like a literal interpretation of His Words. But this in- ability to understand, ever brings out the highest teaching of Christ. We note the analogous fact, and even the analogous teaching, in the 1 Mark the special meaning of eewpuv, portant facts in the history of Jesus are as previously explained. neither due to ignorance of them on the 2 This is not narrated in the Fourth part of the writer of the Fourth Gospel, Gospel. But allusions like this cover nor to the desire to express by silence the whole early history of Jesus, and his dissent from the accounts of the Syn- prove that omissions of the most im- optists. CHRIST'S APPEAL TO THE SCRIPTURES. 33 case of Nicodemus.* l Only, his was the misunderstanding of igno- CHAP. ranee, theirs of wilful resistance to His Manifestation ; and so the xxxn tone towards them was other than to the Eabbi. a bt. JOilll Yet we also mark, that what Jesus now spake to * the Jews ' was m- 3 &c- the same in substance, though different in application, from what He had just uttered to the disciples. This, not merely in regard to the Messianic prediction of the Eesurrection, but even in what He pronounced as the judgment on their murmuring. The words : ( No man can come to Me, except the Father Which hath sent Me draw him,' present only the converse aspect of those to the disciples: 'All that which the Father giveth Me shall come unto Me, and him that cometh unto Me I will in no wise cast out.' For, far from being a judgment on, it would have been an excuse of, Jewish unbelief, and, indeed, entirely discordant with all Christ's teaching, if the in- ability to come were regarded as other than moral, springing from man's ignorance and opposition to spiritual things. No man can come to the Christ — such is the condition of the human mind and heart, that coming to Christ as a disciple is, not an outward, but an inward, not a physical, but a moral impossibility — except the Father 6 draw him.' And this, again, not in the sense of any constraint, but in that of the personal, moral, loving influence and revelation, to which Christ refers when He saith : < And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself.' b tst. John Nor did Jesus, even while uttering these high, entirely un-Jewish *"* 32 truths, forget that He was speaking them to Jews. The appeal to their own Prophets was the more telling, that Jewish tradition also applied these two prophecies (Is. liv. 13 ; Jer. xxxi. 34) to the teach- ing by (rod in the Messianic Age.c 2 But the explanation of the eis. iiv. is manner and issue of God's teaching was new : * Everyone that hath 95 on Gen. heard from the Father, and learned, cometh unto Me.' And this, not Jerem. xxxi. by some external or realistic contact with Grod, such as they regarded vol. u. p. that of Moses in the past, or expected for themselves in the latter days ; only ' He Which is from Grod, He hath seen the Father.' But even this might sound general and without exclusive reference to Christ. So, also, might this statement seem : < He that believeth 3 hath eternal life.' Not so the final application, in which the subject was carried to its ultimate bearing, and all that might have seemed general or mysterious plainly set forth. The Personality of Christ ivas the 1 Canon Westcott has called attention times, see the Appendix on Messianic pas- to this. sages. 2 For other Rabbinic applications of 8 The words « on Me ' are spurious, these verses to the Messiah and His VOL. II. D 34 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III , ver. 48 53-58 Bread of Life : ' I am the Bread of Life.' a The Manna had not been bread of life, for those who ate it had died, their carcases had fallen in the wilderness. Not so in regard to this, the true Bread from heaven. To share in that Food was to have everlasting life, a life which the sin and death of unbelief and judgment would not cut short, as it had that of them who had eaten the Manna and died in the wilderness. It was another and a better Bread which came from heaven in Christ, and another, better, and deathless life which was connected with it : * the Bread that I will give is My Flesh,1 for the life of the world.' 5. These words, so deeply significant to us, as pointing out the true meaning of all His teaching, must, indeed, have sounded most mysterious. Yet the fact that they strove about their meaning shows, that they must have had some glimmer of apprehension that it bore on His self-surrender, or, as they might view it, His martyrdom. This last point is set forth in the concluding Discourse,*5 which we know to have been delivered in the Synagogue, whether before, during, or after, His regular Sabbath address. It was not a mere martyrdom for the life of the world, in which all who benefited by it would share — but personal fellowship with Him. Eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of the Son of Man, such was the necessary condition of securing eternal life. It is impossible to mistake the primary reference of these words to our personal application of His Death and Passion to the deepest need and hunger of our souls ; most difficult, also, to resist the feeling that, secondarily,2 they referred to that Holy Feast which shows forth that Death and Passion, and is to all time its re- membrance, symbol, seal, and fellowship. In this, also, has the hand of History drawn out the telescope ; and as we gaze through it, every sentence and word sheds light upon the Cross and light from the Cross, carrying to us this twofold meaning: His Death, and its Celebration in the great Christian Sacrament. 6. But to them that heard it, nay even to many of His disciples, this was an hard saying. Who could bear it ? For it was a thorough disenchantment of all their Judaic illusions, an entire upturning of all their Messianic thoughts, and that, not merely to those whose views were grossly carnal, but even to many who had hitherto been drawn closer to Him. The ' meat ' and e drink ' from heaven which had the Divine seal of c truth ' were, according to Christ's teaching, not 'the Law,' nor yet Israel's privileges, but fellowship with the 1 The words in the A. V. * which I will give ' are spurious. 2 Canon Westcott (ad loc.) clearly shows, that the reference to the Holy Supper can only be secondary. Mark here spe- cially, that in the latter we have ' the Body,' not ' the Flesh,' of the Lord. EEVULSION OF POPULAR FEELING. 35 Person of Jesus in that state of humbleness (< the Son of Joseph,' a), nay, of martyrdom, which His words seemed to indicate, * My Flesh is the true 1 meat, and My Blood is the true drink ; ' b and what even this fellowship secured, consisted only in abiding in Him and He in them ; c or, as they would understand it, in inner communion with Him, and in sharing His condition and views. Truly, this was a totally different Messiah and Messianic Kingdom from what they either conceived or wished. Though they spake it not, this was the rock of offence over which they stumbled and fell. And Jesus read their thoughts. How unfit were they to receive all that was yet to happen in con- nection with the Christ — how unprepared for it ! If they stumbled at this, what when they came to contemplate 2 the far more myste- rious and un-Jewish facts of the Messiah's Crucifixion and Ascension ! d d ver. 62 Truly, not outward following, but only inward and spiritual life- quickening could be of profit — even in the case of those who heard the very Words of Christ, which were spirit and life. Thus it again appeared, and most fully, that, morally speaking, it was absolutely impossible to come to Him, even if His Words were heard, except under the gracious influence from above.6 « ver. 65 And so this was the great crisis in the History of the Christ, We have traced the gradual growth and development of the popular movement, till the murder of the Baptist stirred popular feeling to its inmost depth. With his death it seemed as if the Messianic hope, awakened by his preaching and testimony to Christ, were fading from view. It was a terrible disappointment, not easily borne. Now must it be decided, whether Jesus was really the Messiah. His Works, notwithstanding what the Pharisees said, seemed to prove it. Then let it appear ; let it come, stroke upon stroke — each louder and more effective than the other — till the land rang with the shout of victory and the world itself re-echoed it. And so it seemed. That miracu- lous feeding — that wilderness-cry of Hosanna to the Galilean King- Messiah from thousands of Galilean voices — what were they but its beginning ? All the greater was the disappointment : first, in the re- pression of the movement — so to speak, the retreat of the Messiah, His voluntary abdication, rather, His defeat ; then, next day, the incon- gruousness of a King, Whose few unlearned followers, in their igno- rance and un-Jewish neglect of most sacred ordinances, outraged 1 Comp. here the remarks on ver. 27, 2 Mark here also the special meaning about Truth as the seal with which God sealed the Christ. D 2 36 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III » St. Matt. xv. 12 »> St. John vi. 66 vv. 68, 69 every Jewish feeling, and whose conduct was even vindicated by their Master in a general attack on all traditionalism — that basis of Judaism — as it might be represented, to the contempt of religion and even of common truthfulness in the denunciation of solemn vows ! This was not the Messiah Whom the many — nay, Whom almost any — would own.a Here, then, we are at the parting of the two ways ; and, just because it was the hour of decision, did Christ so clearly set forth the highest truths concerning Himself, in opposition to the views which the multitude entertained about the Messiah. The result was- yet another and a sorer defection. ' Upon this many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him.' b Nay, the searching trial reached even unto the hearts of the Twelve. Would they also go away? It was an anticipation of Grethsemane — its first expe- rience. But one thing kept them true. It was the experience of the past. This was the basis of their present faith and allegiance. They could not go back to their old past ; they must cleave to Him. So Peter spake it in name of them all : 6 Lord, to whom shall we go ? Words of Eternal Life hast Thou ! ' Nay, and more than this, as the result of what they had learned : ' And we have believed and know that Thou art the Holy One of Grod.c * It is thus, also, that many of us, whose thoughts may have been sorely tossed, and whose founda- tions terribly assailed, may have found our first resting-place in the assured, unassailable spiritual experience of the past. Whither can we go for Words of Eternal Life, if not to Christ ? If He fails us, then all hope of the Eternal is gone. But He has the Words of Eternal life — and we believed when they first came to us ; nay, we know that He is the Holy One of Grod. And this conveys all that faith needs for further learning. The rest will He show, when He is transfigured in our sight. But of these Twelve Christ knew one to be ' a devil ' — like that Angel, fallen from highest height to lowest depth.2 The apostasy of Judas had already commenced in his heart. And, the greater the popular expectancy and disappointment had been, the greater the reaction and the enmity that followed. The hour of decision was past, and the hand on the dial pointed to the hour of His Death. 1 This is the reading of all the best MSS., and not as in the A. V. ' that Christ, the Son of the Living God.' For the his- tory of the variations by which this change was brought about, see Westcott, ad loc. 2 The right reading of ver. 71 is : ' Judas the son of Simon Iscariot,' that is, 'a man of Kerioth.' Keriotli was in Judaea (Josh. xv. 25), and Judas, it will be remembered, the only Judaean disciple of Jesus. IN THE BORDERS OF TYRE AND SIDON. 37 CHAPTEE XXXIII. JESUS AND THE SYRO-PHCENICIAN WOMAN. (St. Matt. xv. 21-28 ; St. Mark vii. 24-30.) THE purpose of Christ to withdraw His disciples from the excitement CHAP. of Galilee, and from what might follow the execution of the Baptist, xxxm had been interrupted by the events at Beth saida- Julias, but it was not changed. On the contrary, it must have been intensified. That wild, popular outburst, which had almost forced upon Him a Jewish Messiah-Kingship ; the discussion with the Jerusalem Scribes about the washing of hands on the following day ; the Discourses of the Sabbath, and the spreading disaffection, defection, and opposition which were its consequences — all pointed more than ever to the necessity of a break in the publicity of His Work, and to withdrawal from that part of Gralilee. The nearness of the Sabbath, and the -circumstance that the Capernaum-boat lay moored on the shore of Bethsaida, had obliged Him, when withdrawing from that neigh- bourhood, to return to Capernaum. And there the Sabbath had to be spent — in what manner we know. But as soon as its sacred rest was past, the journey was resumed. For the reasons already explained, it extended much further than any other, and into regions which, we may venture to suggest, would not have been traversed but for the peculiar circumstances of the moment. A comparatively short journey would bring Jesus and His com- panions from Capernaum ' into the parts,' or, as St. Mark more spe- cifically calls them, ' the borders of Tyre and Sidon.' At that time this district extended, north of Galilee,* from the Mediterranean to ^ war the Jordan. But the event about to be related occurred, as all circum- stances show, not within the territory of Tyre and Sidon, but on its borders, and within the limits of the Land of Israel. If any doubt could attach to the objects which determined Christ's journey to those parts, it would be removed by the circumstance that St. Matthew b *^t. jratt. 38 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK ni » St. Matt. xv. 23 » St. Mark vii-24, 25 « Ezra ix. 1 tells us, He < withdrew ' l thither, while St. Mark notes that He ( entered into an house, and would have no man know it.' That house in which Jesus sought shelter and privacy would, of course,, be a Jewish home ; and, that it was within the borders of Israel, i& further evidenced by the notice of St. Matthew, that ' the Canaanitish woman ' who sought His help ' came out from those borders ' — that is, from out the Tyro-Sidonian district — into that Galilean border where Jesus was. The whole circumstances seem to point to more than a night's rest in that distant home. Possibly, the two first Passover-days may have been spent here. If the Saviour had left Capernaum on the Sabbath evening, or the Sunday morning, He may have reached that home on the borders before the Paschal Eve, and the Monday and Tuesday2 may have been the festive Paschal days, on which sacred rest was enjoined. This would also give an adequate motive for such a sojourn in that house, as seems required by the narrative of St. Mark. According to that Evangelist, Jesus 'would have no man know ' His Presence in that place, ' but He could not be hid.' Manifestly, this could not apply to the rest of one night in a house. According to the same Evangelist, the fame of His Presence spread into the neighbouring district of Tyre and Sidon, and reached the mother of the demonised child, upon which she went from her home into Galilee to apply for help to Jesus. All this implies a stay of two or three days. And with this also agrees the after-complaint of the disciples : ' Send her away, for she crieth after us.' a As the Saviour apparently received the woman in the house,b it seems that she must have followed some of the disciples, entreating their help or intercession in a manner that attracted the attention which, according to the will of Jesus, they would fain have avoided, before, in her despair,, she ventured into the Presence of Christ within the house. All this resolves into a higher harmony those small seeming discrepancies, which negative criticism has tried to magnify into contradictions. It also adds graphic details to the story. She who now sought His help was, as St. Matthew calls her, from the Jewish standpoint, ' a Canaanitish0 woman,' by which term a Jew would desig- nate a native of Phoenicia, or, as St. Mark calls her, a Syro-Phcenician (to distinguish her country from Lybo-Phcenicia), and ' a Greek '- that is, a heathen. But, we can understand how she who, as Bengel says, made the misery of her little child her own, would, on hearing of the Christ and His mighty deeds, seek His help with the most 1 So correctly rendered. 2 Or, the Passover-eve may have been Monday evening.. FIEST REFUSAL TO THE SYRO-PHCENICIAN WOMAN. 39 intense earnestness, and that, in so doing, she would approach Him CHAP. with lowliest reverence, falling at His Feet.a But what in the cir- xxxm eumstances seems so peculiar, and, in our view, furnishes the expla- »st. Mark nation of the Lord's bearing towards this woman, is her mode of addressing Him : ' 0 Lord, Thou Son of David ! ' This was the most distinctively Jewish appellation of the Messiah ; and yet it is emphatically stated of her, that she was a heathen. Tradition has preserved a few reported sayings of Christ, of which that about to be quoted seems, at least, quite Christ-like. It is reported that, ' having seen a man working on the Sabbath, He said : " 0 man, if indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed ; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, and art a transgressor of the Law." ' l The same principle applied to the address of this woman — only that, in what followed, Christ imparted to her the knowledge needful to make her blessed. Spoken by a heathen, these words were an appeal, not to the Messiah of Israel, but to an Israelitish Messiah — for David had never reigned over her or her people. The title might be most rightfully used, if the promises to David were fully and spiritually apprehended — not otherwise. If used without that knowledge, it was an address by a stranger to a Jewish Messiah, Whose works were only miracles, and not also and primarily signs. Now this was exactly the error of the Jews which Jesus had encountered and combated, alike when He resisted the attempt to make Him King, in His reply to the Jerusalem Scribes, and in His Discourses at Capernaum. To have granted her the help she so entreated, would have been, as it were, to reverse the whole of His Teaching, and to make His works of healing merely works of power. For, it will not be contended that this heathen woman had full spiritual knowledge of the world-wide bearing of the Davidic promises, or of the world- embracing designation of the Messiah as the Son of David. In her mouth, then, it meant something to which Christ could not have yielded. And yet He could not refuse her petition. And so He first taught her, in such manner as she could understand — that which she needed to know, before she could approach Him in such manner — the relation of the heathen to the Jewish world, and of both to the Messiah, and then He gave her what she asked. It is this, we feel convinced, which explains all. It could not have been, that from His human standpoint He first kept silence, His deep tenderness and sympathy forbidding Him to speak, while the 1 Comp. Canon Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Appendix C. 40 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK normal limitation of His Mission forbade Him to act as she sought.1 in Such limitation could not have existed in His mind ; nor can \ve suppose such an utter separation of His Human from His Divine consciousness in His Messianic acting. And we recoil from the opposite explanation, which supposes Christ to have either tried the faith of the woman, or else spoken with a view to drawing it out. We shrink from the idea of anything like an after-thought, even for a good purpose, on the part of the Divine Saviour. All such after- thoughts are, to our thinking, incompatible with His Divine Purity and absolute rectitude. God does not make us good by a device — and that is a very wrong view of trials, or of delayed answers to prayer, which men sometimes take. Nor can we imagine, that the Lord would have made such cruel trial of the poor agonised woman, or played on her feelings, when the issue would have been so unspeak- ably terrible, if in her weakness she had failed. There is nothing analogous in the case of this poor heathen coming to petition, and being tried by being told that she could not be heard, because she belonged to the dogs, not the children, and the trial of Abraham, who was a hero of faith, and had long walked with God. In any case, on any of the views just combated, the Words of Jesus would bear a needless and inconceivable harshness, which grates on all our feelings concerning Him. The Lord does not afflict willingly, nor try needlessly, nor disguise His loving thoughts and purposes, in order to bring about some effect in us. He needs not such means ; and, with reverence be it said, we cannot believe that He ever uses them. But, viewed as the teaching of Christ to this heathen con- cerning Israel's Messiah, all becomes clear, even in the very brief reports of the Evangelists, of which that by St. Matthew reads like that of one present, that of St. Mark rather like that of one who relates what he has heard from another (St. Peter). She had spoken, but Jesus had answered her not a word. When the disciples — in some measure, probably, still sharing the views of this heathen, that He was the Jewish Messiah — without, indeed, interceding for her, asked that she might be sent away, because she was troublesome to them, He replied, that His Mission was only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This was absolutely true, as regarded His Work 1 This view is advocated by Dean first, in His calm limitation to His special Plum-ptre with remarkable beauty, ten- mission, and then in His equally calm derness, and reverence. It is also that of overstepping of it, when a higher ground Meyer and of Emald. The latter remarks, for so doing appeared, that our Lord showed twofold greatness : 16 THE ENLIGHTENED PLEA OF THE WOMAN. 41 while upon earth ; and true, in every sense, as we keep in view the CHAP. world-wide bearing of the Davidic reign and promises, and the xxxm real relation between Israel and the world. Thus baffled, as it might seem, she cried no longer * Son of David,' but, ' Lord, help me.' It was then that the special teaching came in the manner she could understand. If it were as ' the Son of David ' that He was entreated — if the heathen woman as such applied to the Jewish Messiah as such, what, in the Jewish view, were the heathens but c dogs,' and what would be fellowship with them, but to cast to the dogs — house- dogs,1 it may be — what should have been the children's bread? And, certainly, no expression more common in the mouth of the Jews, than that which designated the heathens as dogs.a2 Most harsh •Andr.on L s. iv. 8 j as it was, as the outcome of national pride and Jewish self-asser- Meg. 7 6 tion, yet in a sense it was true, that those within were the children, and those ' without ' ' dogs.' b Only, who were they within and who >> Rev. they without? What made 'a child,' whose was the bread — and what characterised ' the dog,' that was c without ' ? Two lessons did she learn with that instinct-like rapidity which Christ's personal Presence — and it alone — seemed ever and again to call forth, just as the fire which fell from heaven consumed the sacrifice of Elijah. 4 Yea, Lord,' it is as Thou sayest : heathenism stands related to Judaism as the house-dogs to the children, and it were not meet to rob the children of their bread in order to give it to dogs. But Thine own words show, that such would not now be the case. If they are house-dogs, then they are the Master's, and under His table, and when He breaks the bread to the children, in the breaking of it the crumbs must fall all around. As St. Matthew puts it : < The dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their Master's table ; ' as St. Mark puts it : ' The dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.' Both versions present different aspects of the same truth. Heathenism may be like the dogs, when compared with the children's place and privileges; but He is their Master still, and they under His table ; and when He breaks the bread there is enough and to spare for them — even under the table they eat of the children's crumbs. But in so saying she was no longer ' under the table,' but had sat down at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and was par- taker of the children's bread. He was no longer to her the Jewish 1 The term means ' little dogs,' or similar, or based on this view of Gen- "* house-dogs.' tiles. - Many passages might be quoted either 42 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK Messiah, but truly 'the Son of David.' She now understood what in she prayed, and she was a daughter of Abraham. And what had taught her all this was faith in His Person and Work, as not only just enough for the Jews, but enough and to spare for all — children at the table and dogs under it ; that in and with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, all nations were blessed in Israel's King and Messiah. And so it was, that the Lord said it: < 0 woman, great is thy faith : be it done unto thee even as thou wilt.' Or, as St. Mark puts it, not quoting the very sound of the Lord's words, but their impression upon Peter : ' For this saying go thy way ; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.' l ' And her daughter was healed from » st. Matt, that hour.' a £ And she went away unto her house, and found her xv. 28 ' daughter prostrate [indeed] upon the bed, and [but] the demon gone out.' To us there is in this history even more than the solemn interest of Christ's compassion and mighty Messianic working, or the lessons of His teaching. We view it in connection with the scenes of the previous few days, and see how thoroughly it accords with them in spirit, thus recognising the deep internal unity of Christ's Words and Works, where least, perhaps, we might have looked for such harmony. And again we view it in its deeper bearing upon, and' lessons to, all times. To how many, not only of all nations and con- ditions, but in all states of heart and mind, nay, in the very lowest depths of conscious guilt and alienation from God, must this have brought unspeakable comfort, the comfort of truth, and the comfort of His Teaching. Be it so, an outcast, ' dog ; ' not at the table, but under the table. Still we are at His Feet ; it is our Master's Table ; He is our Master ; and, as He breaks the children's bread, it is of necessity that ' the children's crumbs ' fall to us — enough, quite enough, and to spare. Never can we be outside His reach, nor of that of His gracious care, and of sufficient provision to eternal life. Yet this lesson also must we learn, that as ' heathens ' we may not call on Him as ' David's Son,' till we know why we so call Him. If there can be no despair, no being cast out by Him, no absolute distance that hopelessly separates from His Person and Provision,, there must be no presumption, no forgetfulness of the right relation, no expectancy of magic-miracles, no viewing Christ as a Jewish Messiah. 1 Canon Cook (Speaker's Comm. on St. With all deference, I venture to think it Mark vii. 29) regards this « as one of the is not so, but that St. Mark gives what very few instances in which our Lord's St. Peter had received as the impression words really differ in the two accounts.' of Christ's words on his mind. LESSONS OF THIS MIRACLE. 43 We must learn it, and painfully, first by His silence, then by this, CHAP. that He is only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, what xxxin we are and where we are — that we may be prepared for the grace of God and the gift of grace. All men — Jews and Gentiles, < children ' and ' dogs ' — are as before Christ and God equally undeserving and equally sinners ; but those who have fallen deep can only learn that they are sinners by learning that they are great sinners, and will only taste of the children's bread when they have felt, < Yea, Lord,' £ for even the dogs ' 'under the table eat of the children's crumbs,' ' which fall from their Master's table.' 44 FKOM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. CHAPTER XXXIV. A GROUP OF MIRACLES AMONG A SEMI-HEATHEN POPULATION. (St. Matt. xv. 29-31 ; St. Mark vii. 31-37; St. Mark viii. 22-26; St. Matt. xi. 27-31.) BOOK IF even the brief stay of Jesus in that friendly Jewish home by the in borders of Tyre could not remain unknown, the fame of the healing of the Syro-Phoenician maiden would soon have rendered impossible that privacy and retirement, which had been the chief object of His leaving Capernaum. Accordingly, when the two Paschal days were ended, He resumed His journey, extending it far beyond any pre- viously undertaken, perhaps beyond what had been originally in- tended. The borders of Palestine proper, though not of what the Rabbis reckoned as belonging to it,1 were passed. Making a long circuit through the territory of Sidon,2 He descended — probably through one of the passes of the Hermon range — into the country of the Tetrarch Philip. Thence He continued ' through the midst of the borders of Decapolis,' till He once more reached the eastern, or south-eastern, shore of the Lake of Gralilee. It will be remembered that the Decapolis, or confederacy of ' the Ten Cities,' 3 was wedged in between the Tetrarchies of Philip and Antipas. It embraced ten cities, although that was not always their number, and their names are variously enumerated. Of these cities Hippos, on the south- eastern shore of the Lake, was the most northern, and Philadelphia, the ancient Rabbath-Ammon, the most southern. Scythopolis, the ancient Beth-Shean, with its district, was the only one of them on the western bank of the Jordan. This extensive ' Ten Cities ' district was essentially heathen territory. Their ancient monuments show, in which of them Zeus, Astarte, and Athene, or else Artemis, 1 For the Rabbinic views of the boun- Saviour's route, but (with Emald and daries of Palestine see ' Sketches of Laiige) the territory of Sidon. Jewish Social Life,' ch. ii. 3 The fullest notice of the ' Ten Cities ' 2 The correct reading of St. Mark vii. is that of Casjmri, Chronolog. Geogr. 31, is 'through Sidon.' By the latter I Einl. pp. 83-91, with which compare do not understand the town of that name, Merike's Bibel- Atlas, Map V. which would have been quite outside the HEALING OF THE DEAF AND DUMB. 45 Hercules, Dionysos, Demeter, or other Grecian divinities, were wor- CHAP. shipped.1 Their political constitution was that of the free Greek xxxiv cities. They were subject only to the Governor of Syria, and formed part of Coele-Syria, in contradistinction to Syro-Phoenicia. This pri- vilege dated from the time of Pompey, from which also they after- wards reckoned their era. It is important to keep in view that, although Jesus was now within the territory of ancient Israel, the district and all the surroundings were essentially heathen, although in closest proximity to, and intermingling with, that which was purely Jewish. St. Mat- thew a gives only a general description of Christ's activity there, ast. Matt. concluding with a notice of the impression produced on those who witnessed His mighty deeds, as leading them to ' glorify the God of Israel.' This, of course, confirms the impression that the scene is laid among a population chiefly heathen, and agrees with the more minute notice of the locality in the Gospel of St. Mark. One special instance of miraculous healing is recorded in the latter, not only from its intrinsic interest, but perhaps, also, as in some respects typical. Among those brought to Him was one deaf, whose speech had, probably in consequence of this, been so affected as practically to deprive him of its power.2 This circumstance, and that he is not spoken of as so afflicted from his birth, leads us to infer that the affection was — as not unfrequently — the result of disease, and not congenital. Eemembering, that alike the subject of the miracle and they who brought him were heathens, but in constant and close contact with Jews, what follows is vividly true to life. The entreaty to * lay His Hand upon him ' is heathen, and yet semi-Jewish also. Quite peculiar it is, when the Lord took him aside from the multitude ; and again that, in healing him, ' He spat,' applying it directly to the diseased organ. We read of the direct application of saliva only here and in the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida,b 3 We are disposed » st. Mark to regard this as peculiar to the healing of Gentiles. Peculiar, also, is the term expressive of burden on the mind, when, ' looking up to heaven, He sighed.' 4 Peculiar, also, is the ' thrusting ' 5 of His 1 Comp. Schurer, pp. 382, 383. 3 In St. John ix. 6 it is really applica- 2 fj.oyt\d\os or noyyiXAxos does not mean tion of clay. one absolutely dumb. It is literally : * others, such a disease as angina,6 involved danger, and superseded the Sabbath-Law. All applications to the outside of the body were forbidden on the Sabbath. As regarded internal remedies, such substances as were used in health, but had also a remedial effect, might be taken,d although here also there was a way of evading the' Law.1 A person suffering from toothache might not gargle hi& mouth with vinegar, but he might use an ordinary toothbrush and dip it in vinegar.6 The Gremara here adds, that gargling was lawful, if the substance was afterwards swallowed. It further explains, that affections extending from the lips, or else from the throat, inwards, may be attended to, being regarded as dangerous. Quite a number of these are enumerated, showing, that either the Rabbis were very lax in applying their canon about mortal diseases, or else that they reckoned in their number not a few which we would not regard as such.2 External lesions also might be attended to, if they involved danger to life.3 Similarly, medical aid might be called in, if a person had swallowed a piece of glass ; a splinter might be removed from the eye, and even a thorn from the body/ But although the man with the withered hand could not be classed with those dangerously ill, it could not have been difficult to silence the Rabbis on their own admissions. Clearly, their principle implied, that it was lawful on the Sabbath to do that which would save life or prevent death. To have taught otherwise, would virtually have involved murder. But if so, did it not also, in strictly logical sequence, imply this far wider principle, that it must be lawful to do good on the Sabbath ? For, evidently, the omission of such good would have involved the doing of evil. Could this be the proper observance of (rod's holy day? There was no answer to such an argument ; St. Mark expressly records that they dared not attempt a reply.g On the other hand, St. Matthew, while alluding to this terribly telling challenge,11 records yet another and a personal argument. It seems that Christ publicly appealed to them : If any poor man among them, who had one sheep, were in danger of losing 1 Thus, when a Rabbi is consulted, whether a man might on the Sabbath take a certain drink which had a purga- tive effect, he answered : ' If for pleasure it is lawful ; if for healing forbidden ' (Jer. Shabb. 14 c). 2 Thus one of the Eabbis regarded f cetor of the breath as possibly dangerous (u. s. 14 d). 3 Displacement of the frontal bone, disease of the nerves leading from the ear to the upper jaw, an eye starting from its socket, severe inflammations, and swelling wounds, are specially men- tioned. fc IS IT LAWFUL TO HEAL ON THE SABBATH-DAY ? ' 61 it through having fallen into a pit, would he not lift it out ? To be CHAP. sure, the Eabbinic Law ordered that food and drink should be lowered xxxv to it, or else that some means should be furnished by which it might either be kept up in the pit, or enabled to come out of it.a But even the Talmud discusses cases in which it was lawful to lift an animal -out of a pit on a Sabbath.b There could be no doubt, at any rate, that even if the Law was, at the time of Christ, as stringent as in the *ne middle Talmud, a man would have found some device, by which to recover the solitary sheep which constituted his possession. And was not the life of a human being to be more accounted of ? Surely, then, on the Sabbath-day it was lawful to do good ! Yes — to do good, and to neglect it, would have been to do evil. Nay, according to their -own admission, should not a man, on the Sabbath, save life; or should he, by omitting it, kill ? We can now imagine the scene in that Synagogue. The place is crowded. Christ probably occupies a prominent position as leading the prayers or teaching : a position whence He can see, and be seen by all. Here, eagerly bending forward, are the dark faces of the Pharisees, expressive of curiosity, malice, cunning. They are looking round at a man whose right hand is withered,0 perhaps putting him c st. Luke forward, drawing attention to him, loudly whispering, c Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day ? ' The Lord takes up the challenge. He bids the man stand forth — right in the midst of them, where they might all see and hear. By one of those telling appeals, which go straight to the conscience, He puts the analogous case of a poor man who was in danger of losing his only sheep on the Sabbath : would he not rescue it ; and was not a man better than a sheep ? Nay, did they not themselves enjoin a breach of the Sabbath-Law to save human life ? Then, must He not do so ; might He not do good rather than evil ? They were speechless. But a strange mixture of feeling was in the Saviour's heart — strange to us, though it is but what Holy Scripture always tells us of the manner in which God views sin and the sinner, using terms, which, in their combination, seem grandly incompatible : ( And when He had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart.' It was but for a moment, and then, with life-giving power, He bade the man stretch forth his hand. Withered it was no longer, when the Word had been spoken, and a new sap, a fresh life had streamed into it, as, following the Saviour's Eye and Word, he slowly stretched it forth. 62 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK And as lie stretched it forth, his hand was restored.1 The Saviour ni had broken their Sabbath-Law, and yet He had not broken it, for neither by remedy, nor touch, nor outward application had He healed him. He had broken the Sabbath-rest, as God breaks it, when He sends, or sustains, or restores life, or does good : all unseen and unheard, without touch or outward application, by the Word of His Power, by the Presence of His Life. But who after this will say, that it was Paul who first introduced into the Church either the idea that the Sabbath-Law in its Jewish form was no longer binding, or this, that the narrow forms of Judaism were burst by the new wine of that Kingdom, which is that of the Son of Man ? They had all seen it, this miracle of almost new creation. As He did it, He had been filled with sadness ; as they saw it, ' they » st. Luke were filled with madness.' a So their hearts were hardened. They could not gainsay, but they went forth and took counsel with the Herodians against Him, how they might destroy Him. Presumably, then, He was within, or quite close by, the dominions of Herod, east of the Jordan. And the Lord withdrew once more, as it seems to us, into Grentile territory, probably that of the Decapolis. For, as He went about healing all, that needed it, in that great multitude that followed His steps, yet enjoining silence on them, this prophecy of Isaiah blazed into fulfilment : c Behold My Servant, Whom I have chosen, My Beloved, in Whom My soul is well-pleased ; I will put My Spirit upon Him, and He shall declare judgment to the Grentiles. < He shall not strive nor cry aloud, neither shall any hear His Voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, till He send forth judgment unto victory. And in His Name shall the Grentiles trust.' And in His Name shall the Gentiles trust. Far out into the silence of those solitary upland hills of the Grentile world did the call, unheard and unheeded in Israel, travel. He had other sheep which were not of that fold. And down those hills, from the far-off lands, does the sound of the bells, as it comes nearer and nearer, tell that those other sheep, which are not of this fold, are gathering at His call to the Grood Shepherd ; and through these centuries, still louder and more manifold becomes this sound of nearing bells, till they shall all be gathered into one : one flock, one fold, one Shepherd. 1 The tense indicates, that it was re- this man was described as a mason, and stored as he stretched it out. And this that he had besought Jesus to restore is spiritually significant. According to him, so that he might not have to beg St. Jerome (Comm. in Matt. xii. 13), in the for food. Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites THE FEEDING OF THE FOUR THOUSAND. 63 CHAPTER XXXVI. THE FEEDING OF THE FOUR THOUSAND — TO EALMANUTHA — ' THE SIGN FROM HEAVEN' — JOURNEY TO C^ESAREA PHILIPPI — WHAT is THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES ? (St. Matt. xv. 32-xvi. 12; St. Mark viii. 1-21.) THEY might well gather to Jesus in their thousands, with their wants CHAP. of body and soul, these sheep wandering without a shepherd ; for His xxxvi Ministry in that district, as formerly in Galilee, was about to draw to a close. And here it is remarkable, that each time His prolonged stay and Ministry in a district were brought to a close with some supper, so to speak, some festive entertainment on His part. The Galilean Ministry had closed with the feeding of the five thousand, the guests being mostly from Capernaum and the towns around, as far as Bethsaida (Julias), many in the number probably on their way to the Paschal Feast at Jerusalem.1 But now at the second provision for the four thousand, with which His Decapolis Ministry closed, the guests were not strictly Jews, but semi-Gentile inhabitants of that district and its neighbourhood. Lastly, His Judsean Ministry closed with the Last Supper. At the first ' Supper,' the Jewish guests would fain have proclaimed Him Messiah-King; at the second, as ' the Son of Man,' He gave food to those Gentile multitudes which, having been with Him those days, and consumed all their victuals during their stay with Him, He could not send away fasting, lest they should faint by the way. And on the last occasion, as the true Priest and Sacrifice, He fed His own with the true Paschal Feast ere He sent them forth alone into the wilderness. Thus these three 6 Suppers ' seem connected, each leading up, as it were, to the other. There can, at any rate, be little doubt that this second feeding of the multitude took place in the Gentile Decapolis, and that those who sat down to the meal were chiefly the inhabitants of that dis- trict.2 If it be lawful, departing from strict history, to study the 1 Comp. ch. xxix. of this Book. Comp. Bp. Ellicott's Histor. Lect. pp. 2 This appears from the whole context. 220, 221, and notes. 64 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK symbolism of this event, as compared with the previous feeding of in the five thousand who were Jews, somewhat singular differences will ~^ ' present themselves to the mind. On the former occasion there were five thousand fed with five loaves, when twelve baskets of fragments were left. On the second occasion, four thousand were fed from seven loaves, and seven baskets of fragments collected. It is at least curious, that the number five in the provision for the Jews is that of the Pentateuch, just as the number twelve corresponds to that of the tribes and of the Apostles. On the other hand, in the feeding of the Gentiles we mark the number four, which is the signature of the world, and seven, which is that of the Sanctuary. We would not by any means press it, as if these were, in the telling of the narrative, designed coincidences ; but, just because they are undesigned, we value them, feeling that there is more of undesigned symbolism in all God's manifestations — in nature, in history, and in grace— than meets the eye of those who observe the merely phenomenal. Nay, does it not almost seem, as if all things were cast in the mould of heavenly realities, and all earth's ' shewbread ' * Bread of His Presence ' ? On all general points the narratives of the twofold miraculous feeding run so parallel, that it is not necessary again to consider this event in detail. But the attendant circumstances are so different, that only the most reckless negative criticism could insist, that one and the same event had been presented by the Evangelists as two separate occasions.1 The broad lines of difference as to the number of persons, the provision, and the quantity of fragments left, cannot be overlooked. Besides, on the former occasion the repast was pro- vided in the evening for those who had gone after Christ, and listened to Him all day, but who, in their 'eager haste, had come without victuals, when He would not dismiss them faint and hungry, because they had been so busy for the Bread of Life that they had forgotten that of earth, But on this second occasion, of the feeding of the Gentiles, the multitude had been three days with Him, and what sustenance they brought must have failed, when, in His compassion, the Saviour would not send them to their homes fasting, lest they should faint by the way. This could not have befallen those Gen- tiles, who had come to the Christ for food to their souls. And, it must be kept in view, that Christ dismissed them, not, as before, because they would have made Him their King, but because Him- 1 Fora summary of the great differ- Bp. Ellicott, u. s. pp. 221, 222. Thestate- ences between the two miracles, comp. ments of Meyer ad loc. are unsatisfactory. DIFFERENCES OF FIRST AND SECOND MIRACULOUS FEEDING. 65 self was about to depart from the place ; and that, sending them CHAP, to their homes, He could not send them to faint by the way. Yet xxxvi another marked difference lies , even in the designation of * the baskets ' in which the fragments left were gathered. At the first feeding, they were, as the Greek word shows, the small wicker- baskets which each of the Twelve would carry in his hand. At the second feeding they were the large baskets, in which provisions, chiefly bread, were stored or carried for longer voyages.1 For, on the first occasion, when they passed into Israelitish territory — and, as they might think, left their home for a very brief time — there was not the same need to make provision for storing necessaries as on the second, when they were on a lengthened journey, and passing through, or tarrying in Grentile territory. But the most noteworthy difference seems to us this — that on the first occasion, they who were fed were Jews — on the second, Grentiles. There is an exquisite little trait in the narrative which affords striking, though utterly undesigned, evidence of it. In refer- ring to the blessing which Jesus spake over the first meal, it was noted,2 that, in strict accordance with Jewish custom, He only rendered thanks once, over the bread. But no such custom would rule His conduct when dispensing the food to the Grentiles ; and, indeed, His speaking the blessing only over the bread, while He was silent when distributing the fishes, would probably have given rise to misunderstanding. Accordingly, we find it expressly stated that He not only gave thanks over the bread, but also spake the blessing over the fishes.a Nor should we, when marking such undesigned *st. Mark evidences, omit to notice, that on the first occasion, which was imme- diately before the Passover, the guests were, as three of the Evan- gelists expressly state, ranged on ' the grass,' b while, on the present bst.Matt occasion, which must have been several weeks later, when in the stkarktt East the grass would be burnt up, we are told by the two Evangelists *"1 that they sat on ' the ground.' 3 Even the difficulty, raised by some, as to the strange repetition of the disciples' reply, the outcome, in part, of non-expectancy, and, hence, non-belief, and yet in part also of such doubt as tends towards faith: 'Whence should we have, 1 The K6ivos (St. Matt., xiv. 20) was makes it more marked is, that the dis- the small handbasket (see ch. xxix.), tinction of the two words is kept up in while the (nrvpis (the term used at the feed- the reference to the two miracles (St. ing of the four thousand) is the large pro- Matt. xvi. 9, 10). vision-basket or hamper, such as that in 2 See ch. xxix. which St. Paul was let down over the * Literally, « upon the earth.' wall at Damascus (Acts ix. 25). What VOL. II. F 66 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK in a solitary place,1 so many loaves as to fill so great a multitude ? ' ill seems to us only confirmatory of the narrative, so psychologically true is it. There is no need for the ingenious apology,2 that, in the remembrance and tradition of the first and second feeding, the simi- larity of the two events had led to greater similarity in their narra- tion than the actual circumstances would perhaps have warranted. Interesting thoughts are here .suggested by the remark,3 that it is not easy to transport ourselves into the position and feelings of those who had witnessed such a miracle as that of the first feeding of the multitude. 'We think of the Power as inherent, and, therefore, permanent. To them it might seem intermittent — a gift that came and went.' And this might seem borne out by the fact that, ever since, their wants had been supplied in the ordinary way, and that, even on the first occasion, they had been directed to gather up the fragments of the Heaven-supplied meal. But more than this requires to be said. First, we must here once more remind ourselves, that the former provision was for Jews, and the disciples might, from their standpoint, well doubt, or at least not assume, that the same miracle would supply the need of the Gentiles, and the same board be surrounded by Jew and Gentile. But, further, the repetition of the same question by the disciples really indicated only a sense of their own inability, and not a doubt of the Saviour's power of supply, since on this occasion it was not, as on the former, accompanied by a request on their part, to send the multitude away. Thus the very repetition of the question might be a humble reference to the past, of which they dared not, in the circumstances, ask the repetition. Yet, even if it were otherwise, the strange forget fulness of Christ's late miracle on the part of the disciples, and their strange repetition of the self-same question which had once — and, as it might seem to us, for ever — been answered by wondrous deed, need not surprise us. To them the miraculous on the part of Christ must ever have been the new, or else it would have ceased to be the miraculous. Nor did they ever fully realise it, till after His Resurrection they understood, and worshipped Him as God Incarnate. And it is only realising faith of this, which it was intended gradually to evolve during Christ's Ministry on earth, that enables us to apprehend the Divine Help as, so to speak, incarnate and ever actually present in Christ. And yet, even thus, how often do we, who have so believed 1 The word ep^ta means a specially lonely place. 2 Of BleeTt. 3 By Dean Plumptrc, ad loc. DALMANUTHA. 67 in Him, forget the Divine provision which has come to us so lately, CHAP. and repeat, though perhaps not with the same doubt, yet with the xxxvi same want of certainty, the questions with which we had at first met the Saviour's challenge of our faith. And even at the last it is met, as by the prophet, in sight of the apparently impossible, by : 6 Lord, Thou knowest.' a More frequently, alas ! is it met by non- a Ezek. belief, misbelief, disbelief, or doubt, engendered by misunderstanding or forgetfulness of that which past experience, as well as the know- ledge of Him, should long ago have written indelibly on our minds. On the occasion referred to in the preceding narrative, those who had lately taken counsel together against Jesus — the Pharisees and the Herodians, or, to put it otherwise, the Pharisees and Sadducees — were not present. For, those who, politically speaking, were •' Herodians,' might also, though perhaps not religiously speaking, yet from the Jewish standpoint of St. Matthew, be designated as, or else include, Sadducees.1 But they were soon to reappear on the scene, as Jesus came close to the Jewish territory of Herod. We suppose the feeding of the multitude to have taken place in the Decapolis, and probably on, or close to, the Eastern shore of the Lake of Galilee. As Jesus sent away the multitude whom He had fed, He took ship with His disciples, and ' came into the borders of Maga- dan,'112 or, as St. Mark puts it, 'the parts of Dalmanutha.' 'The »>st.Matt. borders of Magadan ' must evidently refer to the same district as ' the parts of Dalmanutha.' The one may probably mark the ex- treme point of the district southwards, the other northwards, in the locality where He and His disciples landed. This is, of course, only a suggestion, since neither ' Magadan,' nor ' Dalmanutha,' has been identified. This only we infer, that the place was close to, yet not within the boundary of, strictly Jewish territory ; since on His arrival there the Pharisees are said to 'come forth'0 — a word «st.Mark * which implies, that they resided elsewhere,'3 though, of course, in the neighbourhood. Accordingly, we would seek Magadan south of the Lake of Tiberias, and near to the borders of Gralilee, but within the Decapolis. Several sites bear at present somewhat similar names. In regard to the strange and un-Jewish name of Dalmanutha, such utterly unlikely conjectures have been made, that one based on ety- mology may be hazarded. If we take from Dalmanutha the Aramaic termination -utha, and regard the initial de as a prefix, we have the 1 Compare, however, vol. i. pp. 238, 2 It need scarcely be said that the best 240, and Book V. ch. iii. Where the poli- reading is Magadan, not Magdala. tical element was dominant, the religious 3 Canon Cook in the ' Speaker's Corn- distinction might not be so clearly marked. mentary,' ad loc. r 2 68 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK root Laman, Limin, or Liminah (j^, p^, n^ = X^'i/), whichy in in Rabbinic Hebrew, means a bay, or port, and Dalmanutha might have been the place of a small bay. Possibly, it was the name given to the bay close to the ancient Tarichcea, the modern Kerak, sa terribly famous for a sea-fight, or rather a horrible butchery of poor fugitives, when Tarichsea was taken by the Romans in the last war. Close by, the Lake forms a bay (Laman), and if, as a modern writer asserts,1 the fortress of Tarichsea was surrounded by a ditch fed by the Jordan and the Lake, so that the fortress could be converted into an island, we see additional reason for the designation of Lamanutha? It was from the Jewish territory of Galilee, close by, that the Pharisees now came ' with the Sadducees,' tempting Him with questions, and desiring that His claims should be put to the ulti- mate arbitrament of < a sign from heaven.' We can quite understand such a challenge on the part of Sadducees, who would disbelieve the heavenly Mission of Christ, or, indeed, to use a modern term, any supra-naturalistic connection between heaven and earth. But, in the mouth of the Pharisees also, it had a special meaning. Certain supposed miracles had been either witnessed by, or testified to them, as done by Christ. As they now represented it — since Christ laid claims which, in their view, were inconsistent with the doctrine received in Israel, preached a Kingdom quite other than that of Jewish expectancy — was at issue with all Jewish customs — more than this, was a breaker of the Law, in its most important commandments, as they understood them — it followed that, according to Deut. xiii., He was a false prophet, who was not to be listened to. Then, also, must the miracles which He did have been wrought by the power of Beelzebul, f the lord of idolatrous worship,' the very prince of devils. But had there been real signs, and might it not all have been an illusion ? Let Him show them 4 a sign,' 3 and let that sign come direct from heaven ! Two striking instances from Rabbinic literature will show, that this demand of the Pharisees was in accordance with their notions and practice. We read that, when a certain Rabbi was asked by his disciples about the time of Messiah's Coming, he replied : 4 1 am afraid that you will also ask me for a sign.' When they promised 1 Sepp, ap. Bottger, Topogr. Lex. zu analogous instances, be r\W (Oth), and Fl. Josephus, p. 240. not j)^D (Sim an), as Wiinsche suggests, = Bearing in mind that Tarictoea was eyen th h the WQrd . 8 f ormed f rQm the the chief depot for salting the fish for Greek ^ But the Rabbinic ^man export, the dasciples may have had some seems to me to haye ft different shade of connections with the place. meaning 3 The word here used would, to judge by THE SIGN FROM HEAVEN. 69 they would not do so, he told them that the gate of Kome would fall CHAP. and be rebuilt, and fall again, when there would not be time to xxxvi restore it, ere the Son of David came. On this they pressed him, despite his remonstrance, for 6 a sign,' when this was given them — that the waters which issued from the cave of Pamias were turned into blood.a l Again, as regards ' a sign from heaven,' it is said that the Kabbi Elieser, when his teaching was challenged, successively appealed to certain ' signs.' First, a locust-tree moved at his bid- ding one hundred, or, according to some, four hundred cubits. Next, the channels of water were made to flow backwards ; then the -walls of the Academy leaned forward, and were only arrested at the bidding of another Eabbi. Lastly, Elieser exclaimed : ' If the Law is as I teach, let it be proved from heaven ! ' when a voice fell from the sky (the Bath KoV) : ' What have ye to do with Kabbi Elieser, for the Halachah is as he teaches ? ' b It was, therefore, no strange thing, when the Pharisees asked of Jesus { a sign from heaven,' to attest His claims and teaching. The answer which He gave was among the most solemn which the leaders of Israel could have heard, and He spake it in deep sorrow of spirit.6 They had asked Him virtually, for some sign of His Messiahship; some striking vindication from heaven of His claims. It would be given them only too soon. We have already seen,2 that there was a Coming of Christ in His Kingdom — a vindication of His kingly claim before His apostate rebellious subjects, when they who would not have Him to reign over them, but betrayed and crucified Him, would have their commonwealth and city, their polity and Temple, destroyed. •By the lurid light of the flames of Jerusalem and the Sanctuary were •the words on the Cross to be read again. God would vindicate His claims by laying low the pride of their rebellion. The burning of Jerusalem was (rod's answer to the Jews' cry, ' Away with Him— we have no king but Caesar;' the thousands of crosses on which the Romans hanged their captives, the terrible counterpart of the Cross on Grolgotha. It was to this, that Jesus referred in His reply to the Pharisees -and ; Sadducean ' Herodians. How strange ! Men could discern by the •appearance of the sky whether the day would be fair or stormy.3 1 However, this (and, for that matter, St. Matt xvi. 2, beginning- ' When it is the next Haggadah also) may have been evening/ to the end of ver. 3, most critics •intended to be taken in an allegoric or are agreed that they should be retained, •parabolic sense, though there is no hint But the words in italics in w. 2 and 3 'given to that effect. should be left out, so as to mark excla- 2 See ch. xxvii. vol. i. p. 647. mations. 3 Although some of the best MSS. omit 70 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III • St. Mark viii. 12 t> St. Luke xix. 41-44 c St. John vii. And yet, when all the signs of the gathering storm, that would destroy their city and people, were clearly visible, they, the leaders of the people, failed to perceive them ! Israel asked for * a sign ' ! No sign should be given the doomed land and city other than that which had been given to Nineveh : * the sign of Jonah.' l The only sign to Nineveh was Jonah's solemn warning of near judgment, and his call to repentance — and the only sign now, or rather < unto this generation no sign,' a was the warning cry of judgment and the loving call to repentance.b It was but a natural, almost necessary, sequence, that * He left them and departed.' Once more the ship, which bore Him and His disciples, spread its sails towards the coast of Beth saida- Julias. He was on His way to the utmost limit of the land, to Csesarea Philippi, in pursuit of His purpose to delay the final conflict. For the great crisis must begin, as it would end, in Jerusalem, and at the Feast ; it would begin at the Feast of Tabernacles,0 and it would end at the following Passover. But by the way, the disciples themselves showed how little even they, who had so long and closely followed Christ, under- stood His teaching, and how prone to misapprehension their spiritual dulness rendered them. Yet it was not so gross and altogether incom- prehensible, as the common reading of what happened would imply. When the Lord touched the other shore, His mind and heart were still full of the scene from which He had lately passed. For truly, on this demand for a sign did the future of Israel seem to hang. Perhaps it is not presumptuous to suppose, that the journey across the Lake had been made in silence on His part, so deeply were mind and heart engrossed with the fate of His own royal city* And now, when they landed, they carried ashore the empty provision- baskets ; for, as, with his usual attention to details, St. Mark notes, they had only brought one loaf of bread with them. In fact, in the excitement and hurry < they forgot to take bread ' with them. Whether or not something connected with this arrested the attention of Christ, He at last broke the silence, speaking that which was so much on his mind. He warned them, as greatly they needed it, of the leaven with which Pharisees and Sadducees had, each in their own manner, leavened, and so corrupted,2 the holy bread of Scripture- truth. The disciples, aware that in their hurry and excitement they 1 So according to the best reading. 2 The figurative meaning of leaven, as that which morally corrupts, was familar to the Jews. Thus the word T)Kfc? (Seor) is used in the sense of 'moral leaven ' hindering the good in Ber. 17 a, while the verb pan (cliamez) ' to become leavened,' is used to indicate moral deterioration in Eosh haSh. 3 &, 4 a. BEWARE OF THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES. 71 had forgotten bread, misunderstood these words of Christ — although CHAP. not in the utterly unaccountable manner which commentators gene- xxxvi rally suppose : as implying ' a caution against procuring bread from His enemies.' It is well-nigh impossible, that the disciples could have understood the warning of Christ as meaning any such thing — even irrespective of the consideration, that a prohibition to buy bread from either the Pharisees or Sadducees would have involved an impossibility. The misunderstanding of the disciples was, if unwarrantable, at least rational. They thought the words of Christ implied, that in His view they had not forgotten to bring bread, but purposely omitted to do so, in order, like the Pharisees and Sadducees, to c seek of Him a sign ? of His Divine Messiahship — nay, to oblige Him to show such — that of miraculous provision in their want. The mere suspicion showed what was in their minds, and pointed to their danger. This explains how, in His reply, Jesus reproved them, not for utter want of discernment, but only for * little faith.' It was their lack of faith — the very leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees — which had suggested such a thought. Again, if the experience of the past — their own twice-repeated question, and the practical answer which it had received in the miraculous provision of not only enough, but to spare — had taught them anything, it should have been to believe, that the needful provision of their wants by Christ was not { a sign,' such as the Pharisees had asked, but what faith might ever expect from Christ, when following after, or waiting upon, Him. Then understood they truly, that it was not of the leaven of bread that He had bidden them beware — that His mys- terious words bore no reference to bread, nor to their omitting to bring it for the purpose of eliciting a sign from Him, but pointed to the far more real danger of * the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees,' which had underlain the demand for a sign from heaven. Here, as always, Christ rather suggests than gives the interpreta- tion of His meaning. And this is the law of His Teaching. Our modern Pharisees and Sadducees, also, too often ask of Him a sign from heaven in evidence of His claims. And we also too often mis- understand His warning to us concerning their leaven. Seeing the scanty store in our basket, our little faith is busy with thoughts about possible signs in multiplying the one loaf which we have, for- getful that, where Christ is, faith may ever expect all that is needful, and that our care should only be in regard to the teaching which might leaven and corrupt that on which our souls are fed. FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. CHAPTER XXXVII. THE GREAT CONFESSION — THE GREAT COMMISSION — THE GREAT INSTRUCTION THE GREAT TEMPTATION — THE GREAT DECISION. (St. Matt. xvi. 13-28 ; St. Mark viii. 27— ix. 1 ; St. Luke ix. 18-27.) BOOK IF we are right in identifying the little bay — Dalmanutha — with the in neighbourhood of Tarichsea, yet another link of strange coincidence connects the prophetic warning spoken there with its fulfilment. From Dalmanutha our Lord passed across the Lake to Csesarea Philippi. From Caesarea Philippi did Vespasian pass through Tibe- rias to Tarichsea, when the town and people were destroyed, and the blood of the fugitives reddened the Lake, and their bodies choked its waters. Even amidst the horrors of the last Jewish war, few spectacles could have been so sickening as that of the wild stand at Tarichsea, ending with the butchery of 6,500 on land and sea, and lastly, the vile treachery by which they, to whom mercy had been promised, were lured into the circus at Tiberias, when the weak and old, to the number of about 1,200, were slaughtered, and the rest jos. Jew. —upwards of 30,400 — sold into slavery.* l Well might He, Who foresaw and foretold that terrible end, standing on that spot, deeply sigh in spirit as He spake to them who asked 6 a sign,' and yet saw not what even ordinary discernment might have perceived of the red and lowering sky overhead. From Dalmanutha, across the Lake, then by the plain where so lately the 5,000 had been fed, and near to Bethsaida, would the road of Christ and His disciples lead to the capital of the Tetrarch Philip, the ancient Paneas, or, as it was then called, Csesarea Philippi, the modern Banias. TWo days' journey would accomplish the whole distance. There would be no need of taking the route now usually followed, by Safed. Straight northwards from the Lake of Galilee, a distance of about ten miles, leads the road to the 1 If it were for no other reason than Galileans, Josejihus, tells this story, he the mode in which the ex-general of the would deserve our execration. TO C^ESAREA FHILIPPI. 73 uppermost Jordan-Lake, that now called Huleh, the ancient Merom.1 CHAP. As we ascend from the shores of Grennesaret, we have a receding xxxvii view of the whole Lake and the Jordan-valley beyond. Before us rise hills ; over them, to the west, are the heights of Safed ; beyond them swells the undulating plain between the two ranges of Anti- Libanus; far off is Hermon, with its twin snow-clad heads (< the Hermons'),a and, in the dim far background, majestic Lebanon. It «PS. xm.6 is scarcely likely, that Jesus and His disciples skirted the almost impenetrable marsh and jungle by Lake Merom. It was there, that Joshua had fought the last and decisive battle against Jabin and his confederates, by which Northern Palestine was gained to Israel.b We b Josh. xi. turn north of the Lake, and west to Kedes, the Kedesh Naphtali of the Bible, the home of Barak. We have now passed from the lime- stone of Central Palestine into the dark basalt formation. How splendidly that ancient Priest-City of Kefuge lay! In the rich heritage of Naphtali,c Kedesh was one of the fairest spots. As we ^eut climb the steep hill above the marshes of Merom, we have before us one of the richest plains of about two thousand acres. We next pass through olive-groves and up a gentle slope. On a knoll before us, at the foot of which gushes a copious spring, lies the ancient Kedesh. The scenery is very similar, as we travel on towards Csesarea Philippi. About an hour and a half farther, we strike the ancient Roman road. We are now amidst vines and mulberry-trees. Passing through a narrow rich valley, we ascend through a rocky wilderness of hills, where the woodbine luxuriantly trails around the plane- trees. On the height there is a glorious view back to Lake Merom and the Jordan-valley ; forward, to the snowy peaks of Hermon ; east, to height on height, and west, to peaks now only crowned with ruins. We still continue along the height, then descend a steep slope, leaving, on our left, the ancient Abel Beth Maachah,d the d 2 sam. xx. modern Abil. Another hour, and we are in a plain where all the springs of the Jordan unite. The view from here is splendid, and the soil most rich, the wheat crops being quite ripe in the beginning of May. Half an hour more, and we cross a bridge over the bright blue waters of the Jordan, or rather of the Hasbany, which, under a very wilderness of oleanders, honeysuckle, clematis, and wild rose, rash .among huge boulders, between walls of basalt. We leave aside, at 1 For the geographical details I must not deemed it necessary to make special refer to the works of Stanley and Tris- quotation of my authority in each case. tram, and to Badelter's Paliistina. I have 74 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK a distance of about half an hour to the east, the ancient Dan (the in modern Tell-Kady), even more glorious in its beauty and richness than what we have passed. Dan lies on a hill above the plain. On the western side of it, under overhanging masses of oleander and other trees, and amidst masses of basalt boulders, rise what are called ' the lower springs ' of Jordan, issuing as a stream from a basin sixty paces wide, and from a smaller source close by. The ' lower springs ' supply the largest proportion of wjiat forms the Jordan. And from Dan olive- groves and oak-glades slope up to Banias, or Csesarea Philippi. The situation of the ancient Caesarea Philippi (1,147 feet above the sea) is, indeed, magnificent. Nestling between three valleys on a terrace in the angle of Hermon, it is almost shut out from view by cliffs and woods. ' Everywhere there is a wild medley of cascades, mulberry-trees, fig-trees, dashing torrents, festoons of vines, bubbling fountains, reeds, and ruins, and the mingled music of birds and waters.' l The vegetation and fertility all around are extraordinary. The modern village of Banias is within the walls of the old fortifica- tions, and the ruins show that it must anciently have extended far southwards. But the most remarkable points remain to be described. The western side of a steep mountain, crowned by the ruins of an ancient castle, forms an abrupt rock-wall. Here, from out an immense cavern, bursts a river. These are ' the upper sources ' of the Jordan. This cave, an ancient heathen sanctuary of Pan, gave its earliest name of Paneas to the town. Here Herod, when receiving the tetrarchy from Augustus, built a temple in his honour. On the rocky wall close by, votive niches may still be traced, one of them bearing the Greek inscription, ' Priest of Pan.' When Herod's son, Philip, received the tetrarchy, he enlarged and greatly beautified the ancient Paneas, and called it in honour of the Emperor, Caesarea Philippi. The castle-mount (about 1,000 feet above Paneas), takes nearly an hour to ascend, and is separated by a deep valley from the flank of Mount Hermon. The castle itself (about two miles from Banias) is one of the best preserved ruins, its immense bevelled structure resembling the ancient forts of Jerusalem, and showing its age. It followed the irregularities of the mountain, and was about 1,000 feet long by 200 wide. The eastern and higher part formed, as in Machserus, a citadel within the castle. In some parts the rock rises higher than the walls. The views, sheer down the precipitous sides of the mountain, into the valleys and far away,, are magnificent. 1 Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 586. REVIEW OF WHAT LED UP TO PETER'S CONFESSION. 75 It seems worth while, even at such length, to describe the scenery along this journey, and the look and situation of Csesarea, when we recall the importance of the events enacted there, or in the imme- diate neighbourhood. It was into this chiefly Gentile district, that the Lord now withdrew with His disciples after that last and decisive ques- tion of the Pharisees. It was here that, as His question, like Moses' rod, struck their hearts, there leaped from the lips of Peter the living, life-spreading waters of his confession. It may have been, that this rock-wall below the castle, from under which sprang Jordan, or the rock on which the castle stood, supplied the material suggestion for Christ's words : ' Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church.' l In Csesarea, or its immediate neighbourhood,2 did the Lord spend, with His disciples, six days after this confession ; and here, close by, on one of the heights of snowy Hermon, was the scene of the Transfiguration, the light of which shone for ever into the hearts of the disciples on their dark and tangled path;a nay, far beyond that — beyond life and death — beyond the grave and the judgment, to the perfect brightness of the Eesurrection-day. As we think of it, there seems nothing strange in it, but all most wise and most gracious, that such events should have taken place far away from Galilee and Israel, in the solitary grandeur of the shadows of Hermon, and even amongst a chiefly Gentile population. Not in Judaea, nor even in Galilee — but far away from the Temple, the Synagogue, the Priests, Pharisees and Scribes, was the first con- fession of the Church made, and on this confession its first founda- tions laid. Even this spoke of near judgment and doom to what had once been God's chosen congregation. And all that happened, though Divinely shaped as regards the end, followed in a natural and orderly succession of events. Let us briefly recall the circum- stances, which in the previous chapters have been described in detail. It had been needful to leave Capernaum. The Galilean Ministry of the Christ was ended, and, alike the active persecutions of the Pharisees from Jerusalem, the inquiries of Herod, whose hands, stained with the blood of the Baptist, were tremblingly searching for his greater Successor, and the growing indecision and unfitness of the people — as well as the state of the disciples — pointed to the need for leaving Galilee. Then followed ' the Last Supper ' to Israel on the eastern shore of Lake Gennesaret, when they would have 1 So Stanley, with his usual charm of Ian- infer, that the words of Peter's confes- guage, though topographically not quite sion were spoken in Cassarea itself. The correctly (Sinai and Palestine, p. 395). place might have been in view or in the 2 Nothing in the above obliges us to memory. CHAP. XXXVII 2 Fet. i. 19 76 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK made Him a King. He must now withdraw quite away, out of the in boundaries of Israel. Then came that miraculous night-journey, the brief Sabbath-stay at Capernaum by the way, the journey through Tyrian and Sidonian territory, and round to the Decapolis, the teach- ing and healing there, the gathering of the multitude to Him, to- gether with that ' Supper,' which closed His Ministry there — and, finally, the withdrawal to Tarichaea, where His Apostles, as fishermen of the Lake, may have had business-connections, since the place was the great central depot for selling and preparing the fish for export. In that distant and obscure corner, on the boundary-line between Jew and Gentile, had that greatest crisis in the history of the world occurred, which sealed the doom of Israel, and in their place substi- tuted the Gentiles as citizens of the Kingdom. And, in this respect also, it is most significant, that the confession of the Church took place in territory chiefly inhabited by Gentiles, and the Transfigura- tion on Mount Hermon. That crisis was the public challenge of the Pharisees and Sadducees, that Jesus should legitimate His claims to the Messiahship by a sign from heaven. It is not too much to assert, that neither His questioners, nor even His disciples, under- stood the answer of Jesus, nor perceived the meaning of His ' sign.' To the Pharisees Jesus wrould seem to have been defeated, and to stand self-convicted of having made Divine claims which, when chal- lenged, He could not substantiate. He had hitherto elected (as they, who understood not His teaching, would judge) to prove Himself the Messiah by the miracles which He had wrought — and now, when met on His own ground, He had publicly declined, or at least evaded, the challenge. He had conspicuously — almost self-confessedly— failed ! At least, so it would appear to those who could not under- stand His reply and ' sign.' We note that a similar final challenge was addressed to Jesus by the High-Priest, when he adjured Him to say, whether He was what He claimed. His answer then was an assertion — not a proof; and, unsupported as it seemed, His questioners would only regard it as blasphemy. But what of the disciples, who (as we have seen) would probably understand ' the sign ' of Christ little better than the Pharisees ? That what might seem Christ's failure, in not daring to meet the challenge of His questioners, must have left some impression on them, is not only natural, but appears even from Christ's warning of the leaven — that is, of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Indeed, that this unmet challenge and virtual defeat of Jesus did make lasting and deepest impression in His disfavour, is evident JUDAS. 77 from the later challenge of His own relatives to go and meet the CHAP. Pharisees at headquarters in Judaea, and to show openly, if He xxxvii could, by His works, that He was the Messiah.a All the more »st..iohn remarkable appears Christ's dealing with His disciples, His demand on, and training of their faith. It must be remembered, that His last 6 hard ' sayings at Capernaum had led to the defection of man}', who till then had been His disciples.b Undoubtedly this had already tried their faith, as appears from the question of Christ : ' Will ye also go away ? ' c It was this wise and gracious dealing with them — xv. 12 this putting the one disappointment of doubt, engendered by what they could not understand, against their whole past experience in following Him, which enabled them to overcome. And it is this which also enables us to answer the doubt, perhaps engendered by in- ability to understand seemingly unintelligible, hard sayings of Christ, such as that to the disciples about giving them His Flesh to eat, or about His being the Living Bread from heaven. And, this alterna- tive being put to them : would they, could they, after their expe- rience of Him, go away from Him, they overcame, as we overcome, through what almost sounds like a cry of despair, yet is a shout of victory : ' Lord to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life.' And all that followed only renewed and deepened the trial of faith, which had commenced at Capernaum. We shall, perhaps, best understand it when following the progress of this trial in him who, at last, made shipwreck of his faith: Judas Iscariot. Without attempting to gaze into the mysterious abyss of the Satanic element in his apostasy, we may trace his course in its psychological develop- ment. We must not regard Judas as a monster, but as one with passions like ourselves. True, there was one terrible master-passion in his soul — covetousness ; but that was only the downward, lower aspect of what seems, and to many really is, that which leads to the higher and better — ambition. It had been thoughts of Israel's King which had first set his imagination on fire, and brought him to follow the Messiah. Gradually, increasingly, came the disenchantment. It was quite another Kingdom, that of Christ ; quite another King- ship than what had set Judas aglow. This feeling was deepened as events proceeded. His confidence must have been terribly shaken when the Baptist was beheaded. What a contrast to the time when his voice had bent the thousands of Israel, as trees in the wind ! So this had been nothing — and the Baptist must be written off, not as for, but as against, Christ. Then came the next disappointment, 78 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK when Jesus would not be made King. Why not — if He were King ? in And so on, step by step, till the final depth was reached, when Jesus would not, or could not — which was it ? — meet the public challenge of the Pharisees. We take it, that it was then that the leaven per- vaded and leavened Judas in heart and soul. We repeat it, that what so, and for ever, penetrated Judas, left not (as Christ's warning shows) the others wholly unaffected. The very presence of Judas with them must have had its influence. And how did Christ deal with it ? There was, first, the silent sail across the Lake, and then the warning which put them on their guard, lest the little leaven should corrupt the bread of the Sanctuary, on which they had learned to live. The littleness of their faith must be corrected ; it must grow and become strong. And so we can under- * st. Luke stand what follows. It was after solitary prayer — no doubt for thema — that, with reference to the challenge of the Pharisees, ' the leaven ' that threatened them, He now gathered up all their experience of the past by putting to them the question, what men, the people who had watched His works and heard His words, regarded Him as being. Even on them some conviction had been wrought by their observance of Him. It marked Him out (as the disciples said) as different from all around, nay, from all ordinary men : like the Baptist, or Elijah, or as if He were one of the old prophets alive again. But, if even the multitude had gathered such knowledge of Him, what was their experience, who had always been with Him ? Answered he, who most truly represented the Church, because with the most advanced experience of the three most intimate disciples he combined the utmost boldness of confession : ' Thou art the Christ ! ' And so in part was this e leaven ' of the Pharisees purged ! Yet not wholly. For then it was, that Christ spake to them of His sufferings and death, and that the resistance of Peter showed how deeply that leaven had penetrated. And then followed the grand contrast presented by Christ, between minding the things of men and those of Grod, with the warning which it implied, and the monition as to the necessity of bearing the cross of contempt, and the absolute call to do so, as addressed to those who would be His disciples. Here, then, the contest about 'the sign,' or rather the challenge about the Messiahship, was carried from the mental into the moral sphere, and so decided. Six days more of quiet waiting and growth of faith, and it was met, rewarded, crowned, and perfected by the sight on the Mount of Transfiguration ; yet, even so, perceived only as through the heaviness of sleep. ' WHOM DO MEN SAY THAT I AM ? ' 79 Thus far for the general arrangement of these events. We shall CHAP. now be prepared better to understand the details. It was certainly xxxvu not for personal reasons, but to call attention to the impression made even on the popular mind, to correct its defects, and to raise the minds of the Apostles to far higher thoughts, that He asked them about the opinions of men concerning Himself. Their difference proved not only their incompetence to form a right view, but also how many-sided Christ's teaching must have been. We are probably correct in supposing, that popular opinion did not point to Christ as literally the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets who had long been dead. For, although the literal reappearance of Elijah, and probably also of Jeremiah,1 was expected, the Pharisees did not teach, nor the Jews believe in, a transmigration of souls. Besides, no one looked for the return of any of the other old prophets, nor could any one have seriously imagined, that Jesus was, literally, John the Baptist, since all knew them to have been contemporaries.2 Bather would it mean, that some saw in Him the continuation of the work of John, as heralding and preparing the way of the Messiah, or, if they did not believe in John, of that of Elijah ; while to others He seemed a second Jeremiah, denouncing woe on Israel,3 and calling to tardy repentance ; or else one of those old prophets, who had spoken either of the near judgment or of the coming glory. But, however they differed, in this all agreed, that they regarded Him not as an ordinary man or teacher, but His Mission as straight from heaven ; and, alas, in this also, that they did not view Him as the Messiah. Thus far, then, there was already retrogression in popular opinion, and thus far had the Pharisees already succeeded. There is a significant emphasis in the words, with which Jesus 1 I confess, however, to strong doubts senes.' The first distinct mention of the on this point. Legends of the hiding reappearance of Jeremiah, along with of the tabernacle, ark, and altar of in- Elijah, to restore the ark, &c., is in cense on Mount Nebo by Jeremiah were, Jvsijjjjon beti Gorion (lib. i. c. 21), but indeed, combined with an expectation here also only in the Cod. Munster., not that these precious possessions would be in that used by Breitliaupt. The age of restored in Messianic times (2 Mace. ii. the works of Jos&ppon is in dispute ; pro- 1-7), but it is expressly added in ver. 8, bably we may date it from the tenth that 'the Lord ' Himself , and not the century of our era. The only other prophet, would show their place of con- testimony about the reappearance of cealment. I cannot understand Dean Jeremiah is 4 Esd. (2 Esd.) ii. 18. But Plwmptrefs statement to the contrary, nor the book is post-Christian, and, in that his insistence, that the Pharisees taught, section especially, evidently borrows from or the Jews believed in, the doctrine the Christian Scriptures. of the transmigration of souls. The 2 On the vague fears of Herod, see vol. mistake seems to have arisen from a i. p. 675. misapprehension of what Josephus said, 3 A vision of Jeremiah in a dream was as has been shown in the chapter on supposed to betoken chastisements (Ber. * The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Es- 57 b, line 8 from top). 80 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III turned from the opinion of ' the multitudes ' to elicit the faith of the disciples : ' But you, whom do you say that I am ? ' It is the more marked, as the former question was equally emphasised by the use of the article (in the original) : ' Who do the men say that I am ? ' In that moment it leaped, by the power of God, to the lips of Peter : ' Thou art the Christ (the Messiah), the Son of the Living God.' St. Chrysostom has beautifully designated Peter as ' the mouth of the Apostles ' — and we recall, in this connection, the words of St. Paul as casting light on the representative character of Peter's confession as that of the Church, and hence on the meaning of Christ's reply, and its equally representative application : 4 With the mouth con- » Rom. x. 10 fession is made unto salvation.' a The words of the confession are given somewhat differently by the three Evangelists. From our standpoint, the briefest form (that of St. Mark): 'Thou art the Christ,' means quite as much as the fullest (that of St. Matthew) : ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.' We can thus understand, how the latter might be truthfully adopted, and, indeed, would be the most truthful, accurate, and suitable in a Gospel primarily written for the Jews. And here we notice, that the most exact form of the words seems that in the Grospel of St. Luke : ' The Christ of God.' In saying this, so far from weakening, we strengthen the import of this glorious confession. For, first, we must keep in view, that the confession : ' Thou art the Messiah ' is also that : ' Thou art the Son of the Living God.' If, according to the Gospels, we believe that Jesus was the true Messiah, promised to the fathers — ' the Messiah of God ' — we cannot but believe that He is ' the Son of the Living God.' Scripture and reason equally point to this conclusion from the premisses. But, further, we must view such a confession, even though made in the power of God, in its historical connection. The words must have been such as Peter could have uttered, and the disciples acquiesced in, at the time. Moreover, they should mark a distinct connection with, and yet progress upon, the past. All these conditions are fulfilled by the view here taken. The full knowledge, in the sense of really understanding, that He was the Son of the Living God, came to the disciples only after the Resurrection.1* Previously to the confession of Peter, the ship's company, that had witnessed His walking on the water, had owned : ' Of a truth Thou art the Son of God,' c but not in the sense in which a well-informed, believing Jew would hail Him as the Messiah, and ' the Son of the Living God/ designating both His Office and His Nature — and these two in their b Comp. Bom. i. 4 c St. Matt. xiv. 33 'THOU ART PETER; si combination. Again, Peter himself had made a confession of Christ, CHAP. when, after His discourse at Capernaum, so many of His disciples had xxxvn forsaken Him. It had been : ' We have believed, and know that Thou art the Holy One of God.' a l The mere mention of these words *.s^9Jolm shows both their internal connection with those of his last and crowning confession : < Thou art the Christ of (rod,' and the immense progress made. The more closely we view it, the loftier appears the height of this confession. We think of it as an advance on Peter's past ; we think of it in its remembered contrast to the late challenge of the Pharisees, and as so soon following on the felt danger of their leaven. And we think of it, also, in its almost immeasurable distance from the appreciative opinion of the better disposed among the people. In the words of this confession Peter has consciously reached the firm ground of Messianic acknowledgment. All else is implied in this, and would follow from it. It is the first real confession of the Church. We can understand, how it followed after solitary prayer by Christ b — we can scarcely doubt, for that very revelation by the Father, which He afterwards joyously recognised in the words of Peter. The reply of the Saviour is only recorded by St. Matthew. Its omission by St. Mark might be explained on the ground that St. Peter himself had furnished the information. But its absence there and in the Gospel of St. Luke 2 proves (as Beza remarks), that it could never have been intended as the foundation of so important a doctrine as that of the permanent supremacy of St. Peter. But even if it were such, it would not follow that this supremacy devolved on the successors of St. Peter, nor yet that the Pope of Rome is the successor of St. Peter ; nor is there even solid evidence that St. Peter ever was Bishop of Rome. The dogmatic inferences from a certain interpretation of the words of Christ to Peter being there- fore utterly untenable, we can, with less fear of bias, examine their meaning. The whole form here is Hebraistic. The 'blessed art thou ' is Jewish in spirit and form ; the address, * Simon bar Jona,' proves that the Lord spake in Aramaic. Indeed, a Jewish Messiah responding, in the hour of His Messianic acknowledgment, in Greek to His Jewish confessor, seems utterly incongruous. Lastly, the expression ' flesh and blood,' as contrasted with God, occurs not only in that Apocryphon of strictly Jewish authorship, the Wisdom of the 1 This is the correct reading. Petrine tendency in this, since it is equally 2 There could have been no anti- omitted in the Petrine Gospel of St. Mark. VOL. II. G 82 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. Son of Sirach,a and in the letters of St. Paul,b but in almost innumerable passages in Jewish writings, as denoting man in opposition to (rod ; while the revelation of such a truth by 'the Father Which is in Heaven,' represents not only both Old and New Testament teaching, but is clothed in language familiar to Jewish ears (D?£^2g> -1:^). Not less Jewish in form are the succeeding words of Christ : 4 Thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this Rock (Petra) will I build my Church.' We notice in the original the change from the mas- culine gender, ' Peter ' (Petros), to the feminine, ' Petra ' (' Rock '), which seems the more significant, that both Petros and Petra are used in classical Greek for ' Rock ' or ' Stone.' The change of gen- der must therefore have some definite object. When Peter first came to Christ, the Lord had said unto him : 4 Thou shalt be called « st John i. Cephas, which is, by interpretation, Peter [a Rock] ' c — the Aramaic word Cephas (K$\?, or •"'?''•?) corresponding to the Greek Peter. But both the Greek Petros and Petra have (as already stated) passed into Rabbinic language. Thus, the name Peter, or rather Petros, is Jewish, and occurs, for example, as that of the father of a certain Rabbi o Pesikta, (Jose bar Petros).d When the Lord, therefore, prophetically gave P. 158 a, line the name Cephas, it may have been that by that term He gave only bottom a prophetic interpretation to what had been his previous name, Peter (DIB^B)- This seems the more likely, since, as we have previously seen, it was the practice in Galilee to have two names,1 especially when the strictly Jewish name, such as Simon, had no equivalent among the Gentiles.2 Again, the Greek word Petra — Rock — (' on this Petra [Rock] will I build my Church ') was used in the same sense in Rabbinic language. It occurs twice in a passage, which so fully illustrates the Jewish use, not only of the word, but of the whole figure, that it deserves a place here. According to Jewish ideas, the world would not have been created, unless it had rested, as it were, on some solid foundation of piety and acceptance of God's Law — in other words, it required a moral, before it could receive a physical, foundation. Rabbinism here contrasts the Gentile world with Israel. It is, so runs the comment, as if a king were going to build a city. One and another site is tried for a foundation, but in digging they always come upon water. At last they come upon a Rock (Petra, K-IBB). So, when God was about to build His world, He could not rear it on the generation of Enos, nor on that of the flood, who 1 See the remarks on Matthew-Levi in 'AvSptas and itfTUX (Anderai) = ' manly/ vol. i. ch. xvii. p. 514 of this Book. € brave>, A famijy Anderai is mentioned 2 Thus, for example, Andrew was both Jer_ Chethub- 33 a> 'UPON THIS EOCK WILL I BUILD MY CHURCH/ 83 brought destruction on the world ; but 6 when He beheld that CHAP. Abraham would arise in the future, He said : Behold I have found a xxxvn Eock (Petra, K-IDB) to build on it, and to found the world,' whence also Abraham is called a Eock (Zur, -\\$) as it is said : a < Look unto * ^ «• 1 the Eock whence ye are hewn.' bl The parallel between Abraham Jj^uton and Peter might be carried even further. If, from a misunderstanding j|uj. 9, of the Lord's promise to Peter, later Christian legend represented the Masteimes, Apostle as sitting at the gate of heaven, Jewish legend represents Bine's rs Abraham as sitting at the gate of Grehenna, so as to prevent all who had the seal of circumcision from falling into its abyss.02 To complete this sketch — in the curious Jewish legend about the Apostle Peter, which is outlined in the Appendix to this chapter,3 Peter is always designated as Simon Kephas (spelt fca»p), there being, however, some reminiscence of the meaning attached to his name in the statement made, that, after his death, they built a church and tower, and called it Peter (-is>a) * which is the name for stone, because he sat there upon a stone till his death ' (p«n ^ s& 1E«E>).4 But to return. Believing, that Jesus spoke to Peter in the Aramaic, we can now understand how the words Petros and Petra would be purposely used by Christ to mark the difference, which their choice would suggest. Perhaps it might be expressed in this somewhat clumsy paraphrase : c Thou art Peter (Petros) — a Eock and upon this Petra — the Petrine — will I found My Church.' If, therefore, we would not entirely limit the reference to the words of Peter's confession, we would certainly apply them to that which was the Petrine in Peter : the heaven-given faith which manifested itself in his confession.5 And we can further understand how, just as 'Christ's contemporaries may have regarded the world as reared on the Tock of faithful Abraham, so Christ promised, that He would build His 'Church on the Petrine in Peter — on his faith and confession. Nor would the term 4 Church ' sound strange in Jewish ears. The same Greek word (sKK\rjo-ia\ as the equivalent of the Hebrew Kahal, 1 The same occurs in Shem. R. 15, only Eomans ii. 25, 26, last clauses 1 that there it is not only Abraham but 3 See Appendix XVIII. * the fathers ' who are ' the Rocks ' (the 4 The reader will have no difficulty in word used there is not Petra but Ztir} on recognising a reference to the See of whom the world is founded. Rome, perhaps ' the Chair of St. Peter,' 2 There was a strange idea about mixed up with the meaning of the name Jewish children who had died uncircum- of Peter. cised and the sinners in Israel exchang- • The other views of the words are ing their position in regard to circum- O) that Christ pointed to Himself as the cision. Could this, only spiritually Rock, (£) or to Peter as a person, (<•) or to understood and applied, have been present Peter's confession. to the mind of St. Paul when he wrote G 2 84 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III a Bcclus. xxiv. 2 b Comp. Acts vii. 38, St. Matt. xviii. 17 c Acts xv. 7 ti Acts x. 48 ( convocation,' ' the called,' l occurs in the LXX. rendering of the Old Testament, and in ' the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach,' a and it was apparently in familiar use at the time.b In Hebrew use it referred to Israel, not in their national but in their religious unity. As here employed, it would convey the prophecy, that His disciples would in the future be joined together in a religious unity; that this religious unity or ( Church ' would be a building of which Christ was the Builder ; that it would be founded on ' the Petrine ' of heaven- taught faith and confession ; and that this religious unity, this Church, was not only intended for a time, like a school of thought, but would last beyond death and the disembodied state : that, alike as regarded Christ and His Church — ' the gates of Hades 2 shall not prevail against it.' Viewing ' the Church ' as a building founded upon ' the Petrine,' s it was not to vary, but to carry on the same metaphor, when Christ promised to give to him who had spoken as representative of the Apostles — * the stewards of the mysteries of God ' — ' the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.' For, as the religious unity of His disciples, or the Church, represented ( the royal rule of heaven,' so, figuratively, entrance into the gates of this building, submission to the rule of God — to that Kingdom of which Christ was the King. And we remember how, in a special sense, this promise was fulfilled to Peter. Even as he had been the first to utter the confession of the Church, so was he also privileged to be the first to open its hitherto closed gates to the Gentiles, when God made choice of him, that, through his mouth, the Gentiles should first hear the words of the Gospel,6 and at his bidding first be baptized.d If hitherto it has appeared that what Christ said to Peter, though infinitely transcending Jewish ideas, was yet, in its expression and even cast of thought, such as to be quite intelligible to Jewish minds, nay, so familiar to them, that, as by well marked steps, they might ascend to the higher Sanctuary, the difficult words with which our Lord closed must be read in the same light. For, assuredly, in interpreting such a saying of Christ to Peter, our first inquiry must be, what it would convey to the person to whom the promise was addressed. And here we recall, that no other terms were in more 1 The other word is Edali. Comp. Bible Hist. vol. ii. p. 177, note. 2 It is important to notice that the word is Hades, and not Gehenna, Dean Plumptre calls attention to the wonderful character of such a prophecy at a time when all around seemed to fore- shadow only failure. 3 Those who apply the words ' upon this Rock, &c.'to Peter or to Christ must feel, that they introduce an abrupt and inelegant transition from one figure to* another. 1 BINDING ' AND ' LOOSING.' 85 constant use in Eabbinic Canon-law than those of ' binding ' and CHAP •* loosing.' The words are the literal translation of the Hebrew xxxvn equivalents Asar ("'P^), which means 'to bind,' in the sense of ' - ^ — ' prohibiting, and Hittir ("Vflri, from 10J) which means ' to loose,' in the sense of permitting. For the latter the term Shera or Sheri (*n£>, or n#) is also used. But this expression is, both in Tar- gumic and Talmudic diction, not merely the equivalent of per- mitting, but passes into that of remitting, or pardoning. On the other hand, ' binding and loosing ' referred simply to things or acts? prohibiting or else permitting them, declaring them lawful or un- lawful. This was one of the powers claimed by the Eabbis. As regards their laws (not decisions as to things or acts), it was a principle, that while in Scripture there were some that bound and some that loosed, all the laws of the Eabbis were in reference to •* binding.' a If this then represented the legislative, another preten- If^f- sion of the Eabbis, that of declaring ' free ' or else ' liable,' i.e., guilty Mes- 71 ° (Patur or Chajov), expressed their claim to the judicial power. By the first of these they ' bound ' or 6 loosed ' acts or things ; by the second they ' remitted ' or ' retained,' declared a person free from, or liable to punishment, to compensation, or to sacrifice. These two powers — the legislative and judicial — which belonged to the Eabbinic office, Christ now transferred, and that not in their preten- sion, but in their reality, to His Apostles : the first here to Peter as their Eepresentative, the second after His Eesurrection to the Church.b On the second of these powers we need not at present dwell. That of ' binding ' and ' loosing ' included all the legislative functions for the new Church. And it was a reality. In the view of the Eabbis heaven was like earth, and questions were discussed and settled by a heavenly Sanhedrin. Now, in regard to some of their earthly decrees, they were wont to say that * the Sanhedrin above ' confirmed what £ the Sanhedrin beneath ' had done. But the words of Christ, as they avoided the foolish conceit of His contemporaries, left it not doubtful, but conveyed the assurance that, under the guidance of the Holy Grhost, whatsoever they bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven. But all this that had passed between them could not be matter of common talk — least of all, at that crisis in His History, and in that locality. Accordingly, all the three Evangelists record — each with distinctive emphasis J — that the open confession of His Messiah- h St. John xx. 23 The word used by St. Matthew (Sic- St. Mark (eVer^o-tv) implies rebuke ; means ' charged ; ' that by while the expression employed by St. 6 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK ship, which was virtually its proclamation, was not to be made public. ^ t Among the people it could only have led to results the opposite of those to be desired. How unprepared even that Apostle was, who had made proclamation of the Messiah, for what his confession implied, and how ignorant of the real meaning of Israel's Messiah,, appeared only too soon. For, His proclamation as the Christ im- posed on Him, so to speak, the necessity of setting forth the mode of His contest and victory — the Cross and the Crown. Such teaching was the needed sequence of Peter's confession — needed, not only for the correction of misunderstanding, but for direction. And yet it is significantly said, that ' He. began ' to teach them these things- no doubt, as regarded the manner, as well as the time of this teaching. The Evangelists, indeed, tell it out in plain language, as fully taught them by later experience, that He was to be rejected by the rulers of Israel, slain, and to rise again the 'third day. And there can be as little doubt, that Christ's language (as afterwards they looked back upon it) must have clearly implied all this, as that at the time they did not fully understand it.1 He was so constantly in the habit of using symbolic language, and had only lately reproved them for taking that about ' the leaven ' in a literal, which He meant in a figurative sense, that it was but natural, they should have regarded in the same light announcements which, in their strict literality, would seem to them well-nigh incredible. They could well understand His rejection by the Scribes — a sort of figura- tive death, or violent suppression of His claims and doctrines, and then, after briefest period, their resurrection, as it were — but not the terrible details in their full literality. But, even so, there was enough of terrible realism in the words of Jesus to alarm Peter. His very affection, intensely human, to the Human Personality of His Master would lead him astray. That He, Whom he verily believed to be the Messiah, Whom he loved with all the intenseness of such an intense nature — that He should pass through such an ordeal — No ! Never ! He put it in the very strongest language, although the Evangelist gives only a literal translation of the Eabbinic expression 2 — Grod forbid it, < God be Luke (eVtTtyUTjo-as avTois irapir^etAe) con- on thee,' is the exact transcript of the veys both rebuke and command. Eabbinic Chas lecha ("£> DPI)- See 1 Otherwise they could not afterwards L Neuhebr. Worterb. vol. ii. p. 85. have been in such doubt about His Death The commoner expression is Chas ve and Eesurrection. Shalom, ' mercy and peace,' viz. be to 2 It is very remarkable that the ex- thee> and the meaning js> God forbid, or pression, ?Aec6s a thing Or its continuance. 'THOU ART A STUMBLING- BLOCK UNTO ME.' 87 merciful to Thee : ' l no, such never could, nor should be to the CHAP. Christ ! It was an appeal to the Human in Christ, just as Satan had, in xxxvu the great Temptation after the forty days' fast, appealed to the purely Human in Jesus. Temptations these, with which we cannot reason, but which we must put behind us as behind, or else they will be a stumbling-block before us ; temptations, which come to us often through the love and care of others, Satan transforming himself into an Angel of light ; temptations, all the more dangerous, that they appeal to the purely human, not the sinful, element in us, but which arise from the circumstance, that they who so become our stumbling-block, so long as they are before us, are prompted by an affection which has regard to the purely human, and, in its one- sided human intenseness, minds the things of man, and not those of (rod. Yet Peter's words were to be made useful, by affording to the Master the opportunity of correcting what was amiss in the hearts of all His disciples, and teaching them such general principles about His Kingdom, and about that implied in true discipleship, as would, if received in the heart, enable them in due time victoriously to bear those trials connected with that rejection and Death of the Christ, which at the time they could not understand. Not a Mes- sianic Kingdom, with glory to its heralds and chieftains — but self- denial, and the voluntary bearing of that cross, on which the powers of this world would nail the followers of Christ. They knew the torture which their masters — the power of the world — the Romans, were wont to inflict : such must they, and similar must we all, be prepared to bear,2 and, in so doing, begin by denying self. In such a contest, to lose life would be to gain it, to gain would be to lose life. And, if the issue lay between these two, who could hesitate what to choose, even if it were ours to gain or lose a whole world ? For behind it all there was a reality — a Messianic triumph and Kingdom — not, indeed, such as they imagined, but far higher, holier : the Coming of the Son of Man in the glory of His Father, and with His Angels, and then eternal gain or loss, according to our deeds.a ^'24-27* But why speak of the future and distant ? ' A sign ' — a terrible sign of it ' from heaven,' a vindication of Christ's ' rejected ' claims, a vindication of the Christ, Whom they had slain, invoking His 1 So the Greek literally. cross ; in ours, it is suffering not less acute, 2 In those days the extreme suffering the greatest which one hostile power can which a man might expect from the hos- inflict : really, though perhaps not lite- tile power (the Romans) was the literal rally, a cross. 88 FROM JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. BOOK III « St. Matt, xvi. 28 Blood on their City and Nation, a vindication, such as alone these men could understand, of the reality of His Resurrection and Ascen- sion, was in the near future. The flames of the City and Temple would be the light in that nation's darkness, by which to read the inscription on the Cross. All this not afar off. Some of those who stood there would not ' taste death,' l till in those judgments they would see that the Son of Man had come in His Kingdom.51 Then — only then — at the burning of the City ! Why not now, visibly, and immediately on their terrible sin ? Because God shows not * signs from heaven ' such as man seeks ; because His long- suffering waiteth long ; because, all unnoticed, the finger moves on the dial-plate of time till the hour strikes ; because there is Divine grandeur and majesty in the slow, unheard, certain night-march of events under His direction. Grod is content to wait, because He reigneth ; man must be content to wait, because he believeth. 1 This is an exact translation of the phrase nJVD DJ7E> which is of such very frequent occurrence in Kabbinic writings. See our remarks on St. John viii. 52 i Book IV. ch. viii. BOOK IV. THE DESCENT: FBOM THE MOUNT OF TEANSFIGUEATION INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION AND DEATH. ' But god forbede but men shulde leve Wei more thing then men han seen with eye Men shal not wenen euery thing a lye But yf him-selfe yt seeth or elles dooth For god -wot thing is neuer the lasse sooth Thogh euery -wight ne may it nat y-see.' CHATJCF.B : Prologue to the Legend of Good Women. THE HIGH-POINT IN THE GOSPEL-HISTORY. 91 CHAPTEE 1. THE TRANSFIGURATION. (St. Matt. xvii. 1-8 ; St. Mark ix. 2-8 ; St. Luke ix. 28-36.) THE great confession of Peter, as the representative Apostle, had laid the foundations of the Church as such. In contradistinction to the varying opinions of even the best disposed towards Christ, it openly declared that Jesus was the Very Christ of God, the fulfilment of all Old Testament prophecy, the heir of Old Testament promise, the realisation of the Old Testament hope for Israel, and, in Israel, for all mankind. Without this confession, Christians might have been a Jewish sect, a religious party, or a school of thought, and Jesus a Teacher, Kabbi, Eeformer, or Leader of men. But the confession which marked Jesus as the Christ, also constituted His followers the Church. It separated them, as it separated Him, from all around ; it gathered them into One, even Christ ; and it marked out the foundation on which the building made without hands was to rise. Never was illustrative answer so exact as this : ' On this Eock ' —bold, outstanding, well-defined, immovable — ' will I build My Church.' Without doubt this confession also marked the high-point of the Apostles' faith. Never afterwards, till His Eesurrection, did it reach so high. Nay, what followed seems rather a retrogression from it : beginning with their unwillingness to receive the announcement of His Decease, and ending with their unreadiness to share His suffer- ings or to believe in His Eesurrection. And if we realise the cir- cumstances, we shall understand, at least, their initial difficulties. Their highest faith had been followed by the most crushing dis- appointment ; the confession that He was the Christ, by the an- nouncement of His approaching Sufferings and Death at Jerusalem. The proclamation that He was the Divine Messiah had not been met by promises of the near glory of the Messianic Kingdom, but by announcements of certain, public rejection and seeming terrible 2 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK defeat. Such possibilities had not seriously entered into their iv thoughts of the Messiah ; and the declaration of the very worst, and that in the near future, made at such a moment, must have been a staggering blow to all their hopes. It was as if they had reached the topmost height, only to be hurled thence into the lowest depth. On the other hand, it was necessary that at this stage in the History of the Christ, and immediately after His proclamation, the sufferings and the rejection of the Messiah should be prominently brought forward. It was needful for the Apostles, as the remon- strance of Peter showed; and, with reverence be it added, it was needful for the Lord Himself, as even His words to Peter seem to imply : ' Gret thee behind Me ; thou art a stumbling-block unto Me.' For — as we have said — was not the remonstrance of the disciple in measure a re-enactment of the great initial Temptation by Satan after the forty days' fast in the wilderness ? And, in view of all this, and of what immediately afterwards followed, we venture to say, it was fitting that an interval of ' six ' days should intervene, or, as St. Luke puts it, including the day of Peter's confession and the night of Christ's Transfiguration, 6 about eight days.' The chronicle of these days is significantly left blank in the Gospels, but we cannot doubt, that it was filled up with thoughts and teaching concerning that Decease, leading up to the revelation on the Mount of Transfiguration. There are other blanks in the narrative besides that just referred to. We shall try to fill them up, as best we can. Perhaps it was the Sabbath when Peter's great confession was made ; and the ' six days ' of St. Matthew and St. Mark become the ' about eight days ' of St. Luke, when we reckon from that Sabbath to the close of another, and suppose that at even the Saviour ascended the Mount of Transfigu- ration with the three Apostles : Peter, James, and John. There can scarcely be a reasonable doubt, that Christ and His disciples had not left the neighbourhood of Csesarea,1 and hence, that ' the mountain ' must have been one of the slopes of gigantic, snowy Hermon. In that quiet semi-Grentile retreat of Csesarea Philippi could He best teach them, and they best learn, without interruption or temptation from Pharisees and Scribes, that terrible mystery of His Suffering. And on that gigantic mountain barrier which divided Jewish and 1 According to an old tradition, Christ by St. Mark as after the Transfiguration had left Caesarea Philippi, and the scene (ix. 30) ; (3) Mount Tabor was at that of the Transfiguration was Mount Tabor, time crowned with a fortified city, which But (1) there is no notice of His de- would render it unsuitable for the scene parture, such as is generally made by St. of the Transfiguration. Mark ; (2) on the contrary, it is mentioned THE ASCENT OF MOUNT HERMON. 93 Gentile lands, and while surveying, as Moses of old, the land to be occupied in all its extent, amidst the solemn solitude and majestic gran- deur of Hermon, did it seem most fitting that the Divine attesta- tion should be given, both by anticipatory fact and declaratory word, to the proclamation that He was the Messiah, and to this, that, in a world that is in the power of sin and Satan, God's Elect must suffer, that so, by ransoming, He may conquer it to God. But what a background, here, for the Transfiguration ; what surroundings for the Vision, what echoes for the Voice from heaven ! It was evening,1 and, as we have suggested, the evening after the Sabbath, when the Master and those three of His disciples, linked closest to Him in heart and thought, climbed the path that led up to one of the heights of Hermon. In all the most solemn transac- tions of earth's history, there has been this selection and separation of the few to witness God's great doings. Alone with his son, as the destined sacrifice, did Abraham climb Moriah ; alone did Moses be- hold, amid the awful loneliness of the wilderness, the burning bush, and alone on Sinai's height did he commune with God ; alone was Elijah at Horeb, and with no other companion to view it than Elisha did he ascend into heaven. But Jesus, the Saviour of His people, could not be quite alone, save in those innermost transactions of His soul : in the great contest of His first Temptation, and in the solitary com- munings of His heart with God. These are mysteries which the out- spread wings of Angels, as reverently they hide their faces, conceal from earth's, and even heaven's, vision. But otherwise, in the most solemn turning-points of this history, Jesus could not be alone, and yet was alone with those three chosen ones, most receptive of Him, and most representative of the Church. It was so in the house of Jairus, on the Mount of Transfiguration, and in the Garden of Gethsemane. As St. Luke alone informs us, it was ' to pray ' that Jesus took them apart up into that mountain. ' To pray,' no doubt in connec- tion with ' those sayings ; ' since their reception required quite as much the direct teaching of the Heavenly Father, as had the pre- vious confession of Peter, of which it was, indeed, the complement, the other aspect, the twin height. And the Transfiguration, with its attendant glorified Ministry and Voice from heaven, was God's answer to that prayer. What has already been stated, has convinced us that it could not have been to one of the highest peaks of Hermon, as most modern 1 This is implied not only in the disciples being heavy with sleep, but in the morn- ing scene (St. Luke ix. 37) which followed. 94 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK writers suppose, that Jesus led His companions. There are three IV such peaks : those north and south, of about equal height (9,400 feet above the sea, and nearly 11,000 above the Jordan valley), are only 500 paces distant from each other, while the third, to the west (about 100 feet lower), is separated from the others by a narrow valley. Now, to climb the top of Hermon is, even from the nearest point, an Alpine ascent, trying and fatiguing, which would occupy a whole day (six hours in the ascent and four in the descent), and re- quire provisions of food and water ; while, from the keenness of the air, it would be impossible to spend the night on the top.1 To all this there is no allusion in the text, nor slightest hint of either diffi- culties or preparations, such as otherwise would have been required. Indeed, a contrary impression is left on the mind. ' Up into an high mountain apart,' ' to pray.' The Sabbath-sun had set, and a delicious cool hung in the summer air, as Jesus and the three commenced their ascent. From all parts of the land, far as Jerusalem or Tyre, the one great object in view all their lives must have been snow-clad Hermon. And now it stood out before them — as, to the memory of the traveller in the West, Monte Eosa or Mont Blanc 2 — in all the wondrous glory of a sunset : first rose- coloured, then deepening red, next l the death-like pallor, and the darkness relieved by the snow, in quick succession.'3 From high up there, as one describes it,4 * a deep ruby flush came over all the scene, and warm purple shadows crept slowly on. The Sea of Galilee was lit up with a delicate greenish-yellow hue, between its dim walls of hill. The flush died out in a few minutes, and a pale, steel- coloured shade succeeded. ... A long pyramidal shadow slid down to the eastern foot of Hermon, and crept across the great plain ; Damascus was swallowed up by it ; and finally the pointed end of the shadow stood out distinctly against the sky — a dusky cone of dull colour against the flush of the afterglow. It was the shadow of the mountain itself, stretching away for seventy miles across the plain — the most marvellous shadow perhaps to be seen anywhere. The sun underwent strange changes of shape in the thick vapours — now almost square, now like a domed temple — until at length it slid into the sea, and went out like a blue spark.' And overhead 1 Canon Tristram writes : ' We were 2 One of its names, Skenir (Deut. iii. before long painfully affected by the rarity 9 ; Cant. iv. 8 ; Ezek. xxvii. 5), means Mont of the atmosphere.' In general, our de- Blanc. In Rabbinic writings it is desig- scription is derived from Canon Tristram nated as the ' snow-mountain.' (' Land of Israel '), Lieutenant Cnnder 3 Tristram, u. s., p. 607. (' Tent- Work in Palestine '), and Badeker- * Conder, u. s., vol. i. p. 264. Satin's Palastina, p. 354. SUNSET ON MOUNT HERMON. 95 shone out in the blue summer-sky, one by one, the stars in Eastern brilliancy. We know not the exact direction which the climbers took, nor how far their journey went. But there is only one road that leads from Caesarea Philippi to Hermon, and we cannot be mis- taken in following it. First, among vine-clad hills stocked with mulberry, apricot, and fig trees ; then, through corn-fields where the pear tree supplants the fig; next, through oak coppice, and up rocky ravines to where the soil is dotted with dwarf shrubs. And if we pursue the ascent, it still becomes steeper, till the first ridge of snow is crossed, after which turfy banks, gravelly slopes, and broad snow- patches alternate. The top of Hermon in summer — and it can only be ascended in summer or autumn — is free from snow, but broad patches run down the sides, expanding as they descend. To the very summit it is well earthed; to 500 feet below it, studded 'with countless plants, higher up with dwarf clumps.1 As they ascended in the cool of that Sabbath evening, the keen mountain air must have breathed strength into the climbers, and the scent of snow — for which the parched tongue would long in summer's heat a — have refreshed them. We know not what part • Prov. xxv. may have been open to them of the glorious panorama from Hermon, embracing as it does a great part of Syria from the sea to Damascus, from the Lebanon and the gorge of the Litany to the mountains of Moab ; or down the Jordan valley to the Dead Sea ; or over Galilee, Samaria, and on to Jerusalem, and beyond it. But such darkness as that of a summer's night would creep on. And now the moon shone out in dazzling splendour, cast long shadows over the mountain, and lit up the broad patches of snow, reflecting their brilliancy on the objects around. On that mountain-top ' He prayed.' Although the text does not expressly state it, we can scarcely doubt, that He prayed with them, and still less, that He prayed for them, as did the Prophet for his servant, when the city was surrounded by Syrian horsemen : that his eyes might be opened to behold heaven's host — the 'far more for us than could be against us.'b And, with deep reverence be "2 Kings vi. it said, for Himself also did Jesus pray. For, as the pale moonlight shone on the fields of snow in the deep passes of Hermon, so did the light of the coming night shine on the cold glitter of Death in the near future. He needed prayer, that in it His Soul might lie calm and still — perfect, in the unruffled quiet of His Self- 1 Our description is based on the graphic account of the ascent by Canon Tristram (u. s. pp. 609-613). 96 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK IV « St. Matt, xxvi. 43 ; St. Mark xiv. 40 *» St. Luke « St. Mat- thew a St. Mark • St. Luke surrender, the absolute rest of His Faith, and the victory of His Sacrificial Obedience. And He needed prayer also, as the introduc- tion to, and preparation for, His Transfiguration. Truly, He stood on Hermon. It was the highest ascent, the widest prospect into the past, present, and future, in His Earthly Life. Yet was it but Hermon at night. And this is the human, or rather the Theanthropic view of this prayer, and of its sequence. As we understand it, the prayer with them had ceased, or it had merged into silent prayer of each, or Jesus now prayed alone and apart, when what gives this scene such a truly human and truthful aspect ensued. It was but natural for these men of simple habits, at night, and after the long ascent, and in the strong mountain-air, to be heavy with sleep. And we also know it as a psychological fact, that, in quick reaction after the overpowering influence of the strongest emotions, drowsiness would creep over their limbs and senses. * They were heavy — weighted — with sleep,' as afterwards in Grethsemane their eyes were weighted. a l Yet they struggled with it, and it is quite consistent with experience, that they should continue in that state of semi-stupor during what passed between Moses and Elijah and Christ, and also be ' fully awake ' 2 'to see His Grlory, and the two men who stood with Him.' In any case this descriptive trait, so far from being (as negative critics would have it), a i later embellish- ment,' could only have formed part of a primitive account, since it is impossible to conceive any rational motive for its later addition.3 What they saw was their Master, while praying, 6 transformed.' 4 The ' form of Grod ' shone through the 6 form of a Servant ; ' ' the appearance of His Face became other,' b 5 it < did shine as the sun.' c 6 Nay, the whole Figure seemed bathed in light, the very raiment whiter far than the snow on which the moon shone 7 — c so as no fuller on earth can white them,' d e glittering,' e 6 white as the light.' And 1 The word is the same. It also occurs in a figurative sense in 2 Cor. i. 8 ; v. 4 ; 1 Tim. v. 16. 2 Meyer strongly advocates the render- ing ; ' but having kept awake.' See, how- ever, Godet's remarks ad loc. 3 Meyer is in error in supposing that the tradition, on which St. Luke's account is founded, amplifies the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Mark. With Canon Cook I incline to the view of RescJi, that, judg- ing from the style, &c., St. Luke derived this notice from the same source as the materials for the large portion from ch. ix. 51 to xviii. 17. 4 On the peculiar meaning of the word 7, comp. Bishop LigJitfoot on Philip, pp. 127-133. 5 This expression of St. Luke, so far from indicating embellishment of the other accounts, marks, if anything, rather retrogression. 6 It is scarcely a Rabbinic parallel — hardly an illustration — that in Kabbinic writings also Moses' face before his death is said to have shone as the sun, for the comparison is a Biblical one. Such lan- guage would, of course, be familiar to St. Matthew. 7 The words 'as snow,' in St. Mark ix. 3, are, however, spurious— an early gloss. THE TRANSFIGURATION. 97 more than this they saw and heard. They saw 'with Him two men,'a whom, in their heightened sensitiveness to spiritual phe- nomena, they could have no difficulty in recognising, by such of • st. Luke" their conversation as they heard, as Moses and Elijah.1 The column was now complete : the base in the Law ; the shaft in that Prophetism of which Elijah was the great Representative — in his first Mission, as fulfilling the primary object of the Prophets : to call Israel back to God, and, in his second Mission, this other aspect of their work, to prepare the way for the Kingdom of God ; and the apex in Christ Himself — a unity completely fitting together in all its parts. And they heard also, that they spake of 4 His Exodus — outgoing — which He was about to fulfil at Jerusalem.' b Although the term ' Exodus,' b st. Luke ' outgoing,' occurs otherwise for ' death,' 2 we must bear in mind its meaning as contrasted with that in which the same Evangelic writer designates the Birth of Christ, as His { incoming.'0 In truth, C/J™£°J' 24 it implies not only His Decease, but its manner, and even His Resur- rection and Ascension. In that sense we can understand the better, as on the lips of Moses and Elijah, this about His fulfilling that Exodus : accomplishing it in all its fulness, and so completing Law and Prophecy, type and prediction. And still that night of glory had not ended. A strange pecu- liarity has been noticed about Hermon in 'the extreme rapidity of the formation of cloud on the summit. In a few minutes a thick cap forms over the top of the mountain, and as quickly disperses and entirely disappears.' 3 It almost seems as if this, like the natural position of Hermon itself, was, if not to be connected with, yet, so to speak, to form the background to what was to be enacted. Suddenly a cloud passed over the clear brow of the mountain — not an ordinary, but ' a luminous cloud,' a cloud uplit, filled with light. As it laid itself between Jesus and the two Old Testament Representatives, it parted, and presently enwrapped them. Most significant is it, suggestive of the Presence of God, revealing, yet concealing — a cloud, yet luminous. And this cloud overshadowed the disciples : the shadow of its light fell upon them. A nameless terror seized them. Fain would they have held what seemed for ever to escape their grasp. Such vision had never before been vouchsafed to mortal man as had fallen on their sight; they had already heard Heaven's converse ; they had tasted Angels' Food, the 1 Godet points out the emphatic meaning of o'inves. 2 In some of the Apocrypha and Josepkus, as well as in 2 Pet. i. 15. 3 Conder, u. s. vol. i. p. 265. VOL. II. H 98 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK Bread of His Presence. Could the vision not be perpetuated — at IV least prolonged ? In the confusion of their terror they knew not how otherwise to word it, than by an expression of ecstatic longing for the continuance of what they had, of their earnest readiness to do their little best, if they could but secure it — make booths for the heavenly Visitants l — and themselves wait in humble service and reverent attention on what their dull heaviness had prevented their enjoying and profiting by, to the full. They knew and felt it : 4 Lord ' — ' Rabbi ' — c Master ' — ' it is good for us to be here ' — and they longed to have it ; yet how to secure it, their terror could not suggest, save in the language of ignorance and semi-conscious con- fusion. ' They wist not what they said.' In presence of the lumi- nous cloud that en wrapt those glorified Saints, they spake from out that darkness which compassed them about. And now the light-cloud was spreading ; presently its fringe fell upon them.2 Heaven's awe was upon them : for the touch of the heavenly strains, almost to breaking, the bond betwixt body and soul. ' And a Voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is My Beloved 3 Son : hear Him.' It had needed only One other Testimony to seal it all ; One other Voice, to give both meaning and music to what had been the subject of Moses' and Elijah's speaking. That Voice had now come — not in testimony to any fact, but to a Person — that of Jesus as His 'Beloved Son,'4 and in gracious direction to them. They heard it, falling on their faces in awestruck worship. How long the silence had lasted, and the last rays of the cloud had passed, we know not. Presently, it was a gentle touch that roused them. It was the Hand of Jesus, as with words of comfort He reassured them : 4 Arise, and be not afraid.' And as, startled,5 they looked round about them, they saw no man save Jesus only. The Heavenly Visitants had gone, the last glow of the light-cloud had faded away, the echoes of Heaven's Voice had died out. .It was night, and they were on the Mount with Jesus, and with Jesus only. 1 WiinscJie (ad loc.) quotes, as it seems not agree with Godet, that the question to me, very inaptly, the Rabbinic realistic depends on whether we adopt in St. Luke idea of the fulfilment of Is. iv. 5, 6, that ix. 34 the reading of the T. E. e/ce^ovs, or God would make for each of the righteous that of the Alex, avrovs. seven booths, varying according to their 3 The more correct reading in St. Luke merits (Baba B. 75 a\ or else one booth seems to be ' Elect Son.' for each (Bernid. E. 21, ed. Warsh. p. 85 a). * St. Matthew adds, ' in Whom I am well Surely, there can be no similarity between pleased.' The reason of this fuller ac- this and the words of Peter. count is not difficult to understand. 2 A comparison of the narratives leaves & St. Mark indicates this by the words: on us the impression, that the disciples ' And suddenly, wrhen they looked round also were touched by the cloud. I can- about,' MOSES AND ELIJAH WITH CHRIST. 99 Is it truth or falsehood ; was it reality or vision — or part of both, this Transfiguration-scene on Hermon? One thing, at least, must be evident : if it be a true narrative, it cannot possibly describe a merely subjective vision without objective reality. But, in that/ case, it would be not only difficult, but impossible, to separate one part of the narrative — the appearance of Moses and Elijah — from the other, the Transfiguration of the Lord, and to assign to the latter objective reality,1 while regarding the former as merely a vision. But is the account true ? It certainly represents primitive tradition, since it is not only told by all the three Evangelists, but referred to in 2 Peter i. 16-18,2 and evidently implied in the words of St. John, both in his Gospel,* and in the opening of his First Epistle. Few, if *st. JohnL any, would be so bold as to assert that the whole of this history had been invented by the three Apostles, who professed to have been its witnesses. Nor could any adequate motive be imagined for its invention. It could not have been intended to prepare the Jews for the Crucifixion of the Messiah, since it was to be kept a secret till after His Resurrection ; and, after that event, it could not have been necessary for the assurance of those who believed in the Resurrec- tion, while to others it would carry no weight. Again, the special traits of this history are inconsistent with the theory of its invention. In a legend, the witnesses of such an event would not have been represented as scarcely awake, and not knowing what they said. Manifestly, the object would have been to convey the opposite im- pression. Lastly, it cannot be too often repeated, that, in view of the manifold witness of the Evangelists, amply confirmed in all essentials by the Epistles — preached, lived, and bloodsealed by the primitive Church, and handed down as primitive tradition — the most untenable theory seems that which imputes intentional fraud to their narratives, or, to put it otherwise, non-belief on the part of the narrators of what they related. But can we imagine, if not fraud, yet mistake on the part of these witnesses, so that an event, otherwise naturally explicable, might, through their ignorance or imaginativeness, assume the pro- portions of this narrative ? The investigation will be the more easy, that, as regards all the main features of the narrative, the three 1 This part of the argument is well bodied spirits have no kind of corporeity, worked out by Meyer, but his arguments or that they cannot assume a visible ap- for regarding the appearance of Moses pearance ? and Elijah as merely a vision, because the 2 Even if that Epistle were not St. former at least had no resurrection-body, Peter's, it would still represent the most are very weak. Are we sure, that disem- ancient tradition. H 2 100 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK Evangelists are entirely agreed. Instead of examining in detail the IV various rationalistic attempts made to explain this history on natural grounds, it seems sufficient for refutation to ask the intelligent reader to make attempt at imagining any natural event, which could have been mistaken for what the eyewitnesses related, and the Evan- gelists recorded. There still remains the mythical theory of explanation, which, if it could be supported, would be the most attractive among those of a negative character. But we cannot imagine a legend without some historical motive or basis for its origination. The legend must be in character — that is, congruous to the ideas and expectancies entertained. Such a history as that of the Transfiguration could not have been a pure invention ; but if such or similar expectancies had existed about the Messiah, then such a legend might, without intentional fraud, by a gradual accretion, gather around the Person Who was regarded as the Christ. And this is the rationale of the so-called mythical theory. But all such ideas vanish at the touch of history. There was absolutely no Jewish expectancy that could have bodied itself forth in a narrative like that of the Transfiguration. To begin with the accessories — the idea, that the' coming of Moses was to be connected with that of the Messiah, rests not only on an exaggeration, but on a very dubious translation of a passage in the • on EX. xii. Jerusalem Targum.a * It is quite true, that the face of Moses shone when he came down from the Mount; but, if this is to be the basis of the Transfiguration of Jesus, the presence of Elijah would not be in point. On the other hand — to pass over other inconsistencies — anything more un-Jewish could scarcely be imagined than a Messiah crucified, or that Moses and Elijah should appear to converse with Him on such a Death ! If it be suggested, that the purpose was to represent the Law and the Prophets as bearing testimony to the Dying of the Messiah, we fully admit it. Certainly, this is the New 1 Moses and the Messiah are compared, know only one passage, and that a dubious the one as coming from the desert, the one, in which they are conjoined in the other from Kome. ' This one was brought days of the Messiah. It occurs in Deb. R. 3 out by the leadership of the cloud, and (seven lines before the close of it), and is that one shall be brought out by the to this effect, that, because Moses had in leadership of the cloud, and the Memra this world given his life for Israel, there- of Jehovah will lead between both, and, fore in the ./Eon to come, when God would they come — as I would render it — as one send Elijah the prophet, they two should — i.e. the one as well as the other come, Cheacliath, either ' together ' or ' as ( Vi'inun mehalchin caohada) ; while some one,' the proof passage being Nah. i. 3, render it, ' they shall proceed together.' ' the whirlwind ' there referring to Moses, But I contend, that the context requires and ' the storm ' to Elijah. Surely, no my rendering. Again, although the one would rear on such a basis a Jewish parallel is often drawn in Kabbinic mythical origin of the Transfiguration, writings between Moses and Elijah, I MEANING OF THE TRANSFIGURATION. 101 Testament and the true idea concerning the Christ ; but equally certainly, it was not, and it is not, that of the Jews concerning the Messiah.1 If it is impossible to regard this narrative as a fraud ; hopeless, to attempt explaining it as a natural event ; and utterly unaccountable, when viewed in connection with contemporary thought or expectancy —in short, if all negative theories fail, let us see whether, and how, on the supposition of its reality, it will fit into the general narrative. To begin with : if our previous investigations have rightly led us up to this result, that Jesus was the Very Christ of God, then this event can scarcely be described as miraculous — at least in such a history. If we would not expect it, it is certainly that which might have been expected. For, first, it was (and at that time) a necessary stage in the Lord's History, viewed as the Gospels present Him. Secondly, it was needful for His own strengthening, even as the Ministry of the Angels after the Temptation. Thirdly, it was fi good ' for these three disciples to be there : not only for future witness, but for present help, and also with special reference to Peter's remon- strance against Christ's death-message. Lastly, the Voice from heaven, in hearing of His disciples, was of the deepest importance. Coming after the announcement of His Death and Passion, it sealed that testimony, and, in view of it, proclaimed Him as the Prophet to Whom Moses had bidden Israel hearken,a while it repeated the aDeut.xvm. heavenly utterance concerning Him made at His Baptism.b b St. Matt. But, for us all, the interest of this history lies not only in the ni* 17 past ; it is in the present also, and in the future. To all ages it is like the vision of the bush burning, in which was the Presence of God. And it points us forward to that transformation, of which that of Christ was the pledge, when c this corruptible shall put on incorruption.' As of old the beacon-fires, lighted from hill to hill, announced to them far away from Jerusalem the advent of solemn feast, so does the glory kindled on the Mount of Transfiguration shine through th'e darkness of the world, and tell of the Besurrec- tion-Day. On Hermon the Lord and His disciples had reached the highest point in this history. Henceforth it is a descent into the Valley of Humiliation and Death ! 1 Godet has also aptly pointed out, that mythical theory. It could only point to the injunction of silence on the disciples a real event, not to a myth, as to this event is incompatible with the 102 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. CHAPTEK II. ON THE MORROW OF THE TRANSFIGURATION. (St. Matt. xvii. 9-21 ; St. Mark ix. 9-29 ; St. Luke ix. 37-43.) BOOK I r was the early dawn of another summer's day when the Master and iv His disciples turned their steps once more towards the plain. They had seen His Grlory ; they had had the most solemn witness which, as Jews, they could have ; and they had gained a new knowledge of the Old Testament. It all bore reference to the Christ, and it spake of His Decease. Perhaps on that morning better than in the pre- vious night did they realise the vision, and feel its calm happiness. It was to their souls like that morning-air on the mountain which they breathed. It would be only natural, if their thoughts also wandered to the companions and fellow-disciples whom, on the previous evening, they had left in the valley beneath. How much they had to tell them, and how glad they would be of the tidings they would hear ! That one night had for ever answered so many questions about that most hard of all His sayings : concerning His Rejection and violent Death at Jerusalem ; it had shed heavenly light into that terrible gloom ! They — at least these three — had formerly simply submitted to the saying of Christ because it was His, without understanding it ; but now they had learned to see it in quite another light. How they must have longed to impart it to those whose difficulties were at least as great, perhaps greater, who perhaps had not yet recovered from the rude shock which their Messianic thoughts and hopes had so lately received. We think here especially of those, whom, so far as individuality of thinking is concerned, we may designate as the representative three, the counterpart of the three chosen Apostles : Philip, who ever sought firm standing-ground for faith ;. Thomas, who wanted evidence for believing ; and Judas, whose burning Jewish zeal for a Jewish Messiah had already begun to consume his own soul, as the wind had driven back upon himself the flame that had been kindled. Every question of a Philip,, THE DESCENT FKOM THE MOUNT. every doubt of a Thomas, every despairing wild outburst of a Judas, would be met by what they had now to tell. But it was not to be so. Evidently, it was not an event to be made generally known, either to the people or even to the great body of the disciples. They could not have understood its real meaning ; they would have misunderstood, and in their ignorance misapplied to carnal Jewish purposes, its heavenly lessons. But even the rest of the Apostles must not know of it : that they were not qualified to witness it, proved that they were not prepared to hear of it. We cannot for a moment imagine, that there was favouritism in the selection of certain Apostles to share in what the others might not witness. It was not because these were better loved, but because they were better prepared1 — more fully receptive, more readily acqui- escing, more entirely self-surrendering. Too often we commit in our estimate the error of thinking of them exclusively as Apostles, not as disciples ; as our teachers, not as His learners, with all the failings of men, the prejudices of Jews, and the unbelief natural to us all, but assuming in each individual special forms, and appearing as characteristic weaknesses. And so it was that, when the silence of that morning-descent was broken, the Master laid on them the command to tell no man of this vision, till after the Son of Man were risen from the dead. This mysterious injunction of silence affords another presumptive evidence against the invention, or the rationalistic explanations, or che mythical origin of this narrative. It also teaches two further lessons. The silence thus enjoined was the first step into the Valley of Humili- ation. It was also a test, whether they had understood the spiritual teaching of the vision. And their strict obedience, not questioning even the grounds of the injunction, proved that they had learned it. So entire, indeed, was their submission, that they dared not even ask the Master about a new and seemingly greater mystery than they had yet heard : the meaning of the Son of Man rising from the Dead. Did it refer to the general Resurrection ; was the Messiah to be the first to rise from the dead, and to waken the other sleepers —or was it only a figurative expression for His triumph and vindi- cation ? Evidently, they knew as yet nothing of Christ's Personal Eesurrection, as separate from that of others, and on the third day after His Death. And yet it was so near ! So ignorant were they, and so unprepared ! And they dared not ask the Master of it. This 1 While writing this, we fully remem- « whom Jesus loved ' specially, even in that ber about the title of St. John as he inner and closer circle. 104 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK IV » St. Matt. XL 14 much they had already learned : not to question the mysteries of the future, but simply to receive them. But in their inmost hearts they kept that saying — as the Virgin-Mother had kept many a like saying — carrying it about ' with them ' as a precious living germ that would presently spring up and bear fruit, or as that which would kindle into light and chase all darkness. But among themselves, then and many times afterwards, in secret converse, they questioned what the rising again from the dead should mean. There was another question, and it they might ask of Jesus, since it concerned not the mysteries of the future, but the lessons of the past. Thinking of that vision, of the appearance of Elijah and of his speaking of the Death of the Messiah, why did the Scribes say that Elijah should first come — and, as was the universal teaching, for the purpose of restoring all things ? If, as they had seen, Elijah had come — but only for a brief season, not to abide, along with Moses, as they had fondly wished when they proposed to rear them booths ; if he had come not to the people but to Christ, in view of only them three — and they were not even to tell of it ; and, if it had been, not to prepare for a spiritual restoration, but to speak of what implied the opposite: the Eejection and violent Death of the Messiah — then, were the Scribes right in their teaching, and what was its real meaning? The question afforded the opportunity of presenting to the disciples not only a solution of their difficulties, but another insight into the necessity of His Eejection and Death. They had failed to distinguish between the coming of Elijah and its alternative sequence. Truly £ Elias cometh first ' — and Elijah had < come already ' in the person of John the Baptist. The Divinely intended object of Elijah's coming ivas to 6 restore all things.' This, of course, implied a moral element in popular submission to Grod, and willingness to receive his message. Otherwise there was this Divine alternative in the prophecy of Malachi : < Lest I come to smite the land with the ban ' (Cherem). Elijah had come ; if the people had received his message, there would have been the pro- mised restoration of all things. As the Lord had said on a previous occasion a : ' If ye are willing to receive Mm,1 this is Elijah, which is to come.' Similarly, if Israel had received the Christ, He would have gathered them as a hen her chickens for protection ; He would have not only been, but visibly appeared as, their King. But Israel did not know their Elijah, and did unto him whatsoever they listed ; and so, in logical sequence, would the Son of Man also suffer of 1 The meaning remains substantially the same whether we insert ' him ' or ' it.' THE FAILURE TO HEAL THE LUNATICK. 105 them. And thus has the other part of Malachi's prophecy been fulfilled : and the land of Israel been smitten with the ban.1 Amidst such conversation the descent from the mountain was accomplished. Presently they found themselves in view of a scene, which only too clearly showed that unfitness of the disciples for the heavenly vision of the preceding night, to which reference has been made. For, amidst the divergence of details between the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Mark, and, so far as it goes, that of St. Luke, the one point in which they almost literally and emphatically accord is, when the Lord speaks of them, in language of bitter disappoint- ment and sorrow, as a generation with whose want of faith, notwith- standing all that they had seen and learned, He had still to bear, expressly attributing a their failure in restoring the lunatick to their •« unbelief.' 2 It was, indeed, a terrible contrast between the scene below and that vision of Moses and Elijah, when they had spoken of the Exodus of the Christ, and the Divine Voice had attested the Christ from out the luminous cloud. A concourse of excited people — among them once more ' Scribes,' who had tracked the Lord and come upon His weakest disciples in the hour of their greatest weakness — is gathered about a man who had in vain brought his lunatick son for healing. He is eagerly questioned by the multitude, and moodily answers ; or, as it might almost seem from St. Matthew,b he is leaving the crowd b ver. u and those from whom he had vainly sought help. This was the hour of triumph for these Scribes. The Master had refused the challenge in Dalmanutha, and the disciples, accepting it, had signally failed. There they were, ' questioning with them ' noisily, discussing this and all similar phenomena, but chiefly the power, authority, and reality of the Master. It reminds us of Israel's temptation in the wilderness, and we should scarcely wonder, if they had even ques- tioned the return of Jesus, as they of old did that of Moses. At that very moment, Jesus appeared with the three. We can- not wonder that, < when they saw Him, they were greatly amazed,3 and running to Him saluted Him.' c He came — as always, and c st. Mark to us also — unexpectedly, most opportunely, and for the real decision 1 The question, whether there is to be only an early correction. On internal a literal reappearance of Elijah before grounds it is more likely, that the expres- the Second Advent of Christ does not sion ' little faith ' is a correction by a later seem to be answered in the present pas- apologete, than 'unbelief.' The latter also sage. Perhaps it is purposely left unan- corresponds to « faithless generation.' swered. s There is no hint in the text, that their 2 The reading ' little faith ' instead of amazement was due to the shining of His * unbelief,' though highly attested, seems Face. 106 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK of the question in hand. There was immediate calm, preceding IV victory. Before the Master's inquiry about the cause of this violent discussion 1 could be answered, the man who had been its occasion » st. Mat- came forward. With lowliest gesture (' kneeling to Him ' a) he addressed Jesus. At last he had found Him, Whom he had come to seek ; and, if possibility of help there were, oh ! let it be granted. Describing the symptoms of his son's distemper, which were those of epilepsy and mania — although both the father and Jesus rightly attributed the disease to demoniac influence — he told, how he had come in search of the Master, but only found the nine disciples, and how they had presumptuously attempted, and signally failed in the attempted cure. Why had they failed ? For the same reason, that they had not been taken into the Mount of Transfiguration — because they were 6 faithless,' because of their ' unbelief.' They had that outward faith of the < probatum est ' (c it is proved ') ; they believed because, and what, they had seen ; and they were drawn closer to Christ— at least almost all of them, though in varying measure — as to Him Who, and Who alone, spake ' the words of eternal life,' which, with wondrous power, had swayed their souls, or laid them to heaven's rest. But that deeper, truer faith, which consisted in the spiritual view of that which was the unseen in Christ, and that higher power, which flows from such apprehension, they had not. In such faith as they had, they spake, repeated forms of exorcism, tried to imitate their Master. But they signally failed, as did those seven Jewish Priest- sons at Ephesus. And it was intended that they should fail, that so to them and to us the higher meaning of faith as contrasted with power, the inward as contrasted with the merely outward qualifica- tion, might appear. In that hour of crisis, in the presence of ques- tioning Scribes and a wondering populace, and in the absence of the Christ, only one power could prevail, that of spiritual faith; and f that kind ' could ' not come out but by prayer.' 2 It is this lesson, viewed also in organic connection with all that had happened since the great temptation at Dalmanutha, which fur- nishes the explanation of the whole history. For one moment we have a glimpse into the Saviour's soul : the poignant sorrow of His disappointment at the unbelief of the ' faithless and perverse genera- 1 In St. Mark ix. 16 the better reading like a later gloss. It is not unlikely, that is, 'He asked them,' and not, as in the St. Matt. xvii. 21 is merely a spurious T. E,., « the Scribes.' insertion from. St. Mark. However, see 2 The addition of the word ' fasting ' Meyer on this point, in St. Ma^k is probably spurious. It reads 'ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE TO HIM THAT BELIEVETH.' 107 tion ' !, with which He had so long borne ; the infinite patience and condescension, the Divine c need be ' of His having thus to bear even with His own, together with the deep humiliation and keen pang which it involved ; and the almost home-longing, as one has called it,2 of His soul. These are mysteries to adore. The next moment Jesus turns Him to the father. At His command the lunatick is brought to Him. In the Presence of Jesus, and in view of the coming contest between Light and Darkness, one of those paroxysms of demoniac operation ensues, such as we have witnessed on all similar occasions. This was allowed to pass in view of all. But both this, and the question as to the length of time the lunatick had been afflicted, together with the answer, and the description of the dangers involved, which it elicited, were evidently intended to point the lesson of the need of a higher faith. To the father, however, who knew not the mode of treatment by the Heavenly Physician, they seemed like the questions of an earthly healer who must consider the symptoms before he could attempt the cure. ' If Thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us.' It was but natural — and yet it was the turning-point in this whole history, alike as regarded the healing of the lunatick, the better leading of his father, the teaching of the disciples, and that of the multitude and the Scribes. There is all the calm majesty of Divine self-consciousness, yet without trace of self-assertion, when Jesus, utterly ignoring the ' if Thou canst,' turns to the man and tells him that, while with the Divine Helper there is the possibility of all help, it is conditioned by a possibility in ourselves, by man's receptiveness, by his faith. Not, if the Christ can do anything or even everything, but, ' If thou canst believe,3 all things are possible to him that be- lieveth.' 4 The question is not, it can never be, as the man had put it ; it must not even be answered, but ignored. It must ever be, not 1 The expression 'generation,' although of coarse, one of the outward grounds on embracing in its reproof all the people, which the criticism of the text must pro- is specially addressed to the disciples. ceed, I confess to the feeling that, as age 2 Godet. ^ and purity are not identical, the interpreter 3 The weight of the evidence from the must weigh all such evidence in the light MSS. accepted by most modern critics of the internal grounds for or against its (though not by that very judicious com- reception. Besides, in this instance, it mentator, Canon Cook) is in favour of the seems to me that there is some difficulty reading and rendering: 'If Thou canst 1 about the r6, if iriffTevcrai is struck out, all things are possible,' &c. But it seems and which is not so easily cleared up as to me, that this mode of reply on the part Meyer suggests. of Christ is not only without any other 4 < Omnipotentise Divinas se fides homi- parallel in the Gospels, but too artificial, nis, quasi organon, accommodat, ad recipi- too Western, if I may use the expres- endum, vel etiam ad agendum.' — Bengel. sion. While the age of a MS. or MSS. is, 108 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK what He can, but what we can. When the infinite fulness is poured IV forth, as it ever is in Christ, it is not the oil that is stayed, but the vessels which fail. He giveth richly, inexhaustibly, but not me- chanically; there is only one condition, the moral one of the presence of absolute faith — our receptiveness. And so this has to all time remained the teaching to every individual striver in the battle of the higher life, and to the Church as a whole ; this, the ' in hoc signo vinces ' 1 over the Cross, the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. It was a lesson, of which the reality was attested by the hold which it took on the man's whole nature. While by one great out- going of his soul he overleapt all, to lay hold on that one fact set before him, he felt all the more the dark chasm of unbelief behind him, but also clung to that Christ, Whose teaching of faith had shown him, with the possibility, the source, of faith. Thus through the felt unbelief of faith he attained true faith by laying hold on the Divine Saviour, when he cried out and said : 2 ' Lord, I believe ; help Thou mine unbelief.' 3 These words have remained historic, marking all true faith, which, even as faith, is conscious of, nay im- plies, unbelief, but brings it to Christ for help. The most bold leap of faith and the timid resting at His Feet, the first beginning and the last ending of faith, have alike this as their watchword. Such cry could not be, and never is, unheard. It was real de- moniac influence which, continuing with this man from childhood onwards, had well-nigh crushed all moral individuality in him. In his many lucid intervals these many years, since he had grown from a child into a youth, he had never sought to shake off the yoke and regain his moral individuality, nor would he even now have come, if his father had not brought him. If any, this narrative shows the view which the Gospels and Jesus took of what are described as the * demonised.' It was a reality, and not accommodation to Jewish views, when, as He saw 'the multitude running together, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to him : Dumb and deaf spirit, I command thee, come out of him, and no more come into him.' Another and a more violent paroxysm, so that the bystanders almost thought him dead. But the unclean spirit had come out of 1 ' In this sign shalt them conquer '—the are apparently a spurious addition, inscription on the supposed vision of the 3 The interpretation of Meyer: 'Do Cross by the Emperor Constantine before not withhold thy help, notwithstanding his great victory and conversion to Christi- my unbelief ' seems as jejune as that of anity. others : ' Help me in my unbelief.' 2 The words « with tears,' in the T. K. 'LORD, I BELIEVE; HELP THOU MINE UNBELIEF.' 109 him. And with strong gentle Hand the Saviour lifted him, and with CHAP. loving gesture delivered him to his father. n All things had been possible to faith ; not to that external belief of the disciples, which failed to reach < that kind,' l and ever fails to reach such kind, but to true spiritual faith in Him. And so it is to each of us individually, and to the Church, to all time. * That kind,' —whether it be of sin, of lust, of the world, or of science falsely so called, of temptation, or of materialism — cometh not out by any of our ready-made formulas or dead dogmas. Not so are the flesh and the Devil vanquished ; not so is the world overcome. It cometh out by nothing but by prayer : ' Lord, I believe ; help Thou mine un- belief.' Then, although our faith were only what in popular lan- guage was described as the smallest — < like a grain of mustard- seed ' — and the result to be achieved the greatest, most difficult, seem- ingly transcending human ability to compass it — what in popular language was designated as ' removing mountains ' 2 — c nothing shall be impossible ' unto us. And these eighteen centuries of suffering in Christ, and deliverance through Christ, and work for Christ, have proved it. For all things are ours, if Christ is ours. 1 But it is rather too wide an application, bial among the Kabbis. Thus, a great when EutJiymius Zygadenm (one of the Kabbi might be designated as one who great Byzantine theologians of the twelfth 'uprooted mountains' (Ber., last page, century), and others after him, note ' the line 5 from top ; and Horaj. 14 «), or as kind of all demons.' one who pulverised them (Sanh. 24 a). 2 The Eabbinic use of the expression, The expression also occurs of apparently * grain of mustard seed,' has already been impossible things, such as those which a noted. The expression ' tearing up ' or heathen government may order a man to ' removing ' ' mountains ' was also prover- do (Baba B. 3 J). 110 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. CHAPTEE III. THE LAST EVENTS IN GALILEE — THE TRIBUTE-MONEY, THE DISPUTE BY THE WAY, THE FORBIDDING OF HIM WHO COULD NOT FOLLOW WITH THE DISCIPLES, AND THE CONSEQUENT TEACHING OF CHRIST. (St. Matt. xvii. 22— xviii. 22 ; St. Mark ix. 30-50 ; St. Luke ix. 43-50.) BOOK Now that the Lord's retreat in the utmost borders of the land, iv at Csesarea Philippi, was known to the Scribes, and that He was again surrounded and followed by the multitude, there could be no further object in His retirement. Indeed, the time was coming that He should meet that for which He had been, and was still, preparing the minds of His disciples — His Decease at Jerusalem. Accordingly, we find Him once more with His disciples in Galilee — not to abide there,1 nor to traverse it as formerly for Missionary purposes, but preparatory to His journey to the Feast of Tabernacles. The few events of this brief stay, and the teaching connected with it, may be summed up as follows. 1. Prominently, perhaps, as the summary of all, we have now the clear and emphatic repetition of the prediction of His Death and Resurrection. While He would keep His present stay in Gralilee as •-* st. Mark private as possible,* He would fain so emphasize this teaching to His disciples, that it should sink down into their ears and memories. For it was, indeed, the most needful for them in view of the imme- diate future. Yet the announcement only filled their loving hearts with exceeding sorrow ; they comprehended it not ; nay, they were — perhaps not unnaturally — afraid to ask Him about it. We remember, that even the three who had been with Jesus on the Mount, under- stood not what the rising from the dead should mean, and that, by direction of the Master, they kept the whole Vision from their fellow-disciples ; and, thinking of it all, we scarcely wonder that, from their standpoint, it was hid from them, so that they might not perceive it. 1 The expression in St. Matthew abode, but a temporary stay — a going to (xvii. 22) does not imply permanent and fro. THE TRIBUTE-MONEY. Ill 2. It is to the depression caused by His insistence on this ter- CHAP. rible future, to the constant apprehension of near danger, and the HI consequent desire not to 6 offend,' and so provoke those at whose hands, Christ had told them, He was to suffer, that we trace the incident about the tribute-money. We can scarcely believe, that Peter would have answered as he did, without previous permission of his Master, had it not been for such thoughts and fears. It was another mode of saying, c That be far from Thee ' — or, rather, trying to keep it as far as he could from Christ. Indeed, we can scarcely repress the feeling, that there was a certain amount of secretiveness on the part of Peter, as if he had apprehended that Jesus would not have wished him to act as he did, and would fain have kept the whole transaction from the knowledge of his Master. It is well known that, on the ground of the injunction in Exod. xxx. 13 &c., every male in Israel, from twenty years upwards, was expected annually to contribute to the Temple-Treasury the sum of one half-shekel l of the Sanctuary,a that is, one common shekel, or two a ComP- 2 Kings xii. Attic drachms,2 equivalent to about Is. 2d. or Is. 3d. of our money. Whether or not the original Biblical ordinance was intended to in- 1>eh- x-32 stitute a regular annual contribution, the Jews of the Dispersion would probably regard it in the light of a patriotic as well as religious act. To the particulars previously given on this subject a few others may be added. The family of the Chief of the Sanhedrin (Gamaliel) seems to have enjoyed the curious distinction of bringing their con- tributions to the Temple-Treasury, not like others, but to have thrown them down before him who opened the Temple-Chest,3 when they were immediately placed in the box from which, without delay, sacrifices were provided.b Again, the commentators explain a cer- bshek-ai-3 tain passage in the Mishnah c and the Talmud d as implying that, c Shek- m- 4 although the Jews in Palestine had to pay the tribute-money before the Passover, those from neighbouring lands might bring it before the Feast of Weeks, and those from such remote countries as Baby- lonia and Media as late as the Feast of Tabernacles.4 Lastly, although 1 According to Neh. x. 32, immedi- pieces of silver in the Temple (St. Matt. ately after the return from Babylon the xxvii. 5) ? contribution was a third of a shekel — 4 Dean Plumptre is mistaken in corn- probably on account of the poverty of paring, as regarded the Sadducees, the the people. Temple-rate with the Church-rate ques- 2 But only one Alexandrian (comp. tion. There is no analogy between them, LXX. Gen. xxiii. 15 ; Josh. vii. 21). nor did the Sadducees ever question its 8 Could there have been an intended, propriety. The Dean is also in error in or — what W04ild be still more striking —an supposing, that the Palestinians were unintended, but very real irony in this, wont to bring it at one of the other when Judas afterwards cast down the feasts. 112 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK iv * Yoma «PS. ii.4 d Jos. war the Mishnah lays it down, that the goods of those might be distrained,, who had not paid the Temple-tribute by the 25th Adar, it is scarcely credible that this obtained at the time of Christ,1 at any rate in Galilee. Indeed, this seems implied in the statement of the Mishnah a and the Talmud,b that one of the ' thirteen trumpets ' in the Temple, into which contributions were cast, was destined for the shekels of the current, and another for those of the preceding, year. Finally, these .Temple-contributions were in the first place devoted to the purchase of all public sacrifices, that is, those which were offered in the name of the whole congregation of Israel, such as the morning and evening sacrifices. It will be remembered, that this was one of the points in fierce dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and that the former perpetuated their triumph by marking its anniver- sary as a festive day in their calendar. It seems a terrible irony of judgment0 when Vespasian ordered, after the destruction of the Temple, that this tribute should henceforth be paid for the rebuilding of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.d It will be remembered that, shortly before the previous Passover, Jesus with His disciples had left Capernaum,2 that they returned to the latter city only for the Sabbath, and that, as we have suggested, they passed the first Paschal days on the borders of Tyre. We have^ indeed, no means of knowing where the Master had tarried during the ten days between the 15th and the 25th Adar, supposing the Mishnic arrangements to have been in force in Capernaum. He was certainly not at Capernaum, and it must also have been known, that He had not gone up to Jerusalem for the Passover. Accordingly, when it was told in Capernaum, that the Eabbi of Nazareth had once more come to what seems to have been His Gralilean home, it was only natural, that they who collected the Temple-tribute 3 should have applied for its payment. It is quite possible, that their appli- cation may have been, if not prompted, yet quickened, by the wish to involve Him in the breach of so well-known an obligation, or else by a hostile curiosity. Would He, Who took so strangely different views of Jewish observances, and Who made such extraordinary claims, own the duty of paying the Temple-tribute ? Had it been 1 The penalty of distraint had only been enacted less than a century before (about 78), during the reign of Queen Salome-Alexandra, who was entirely in the hands of the Pharisees. 2 See Book III. ch. xxxi. 8 If it were not for the authority of Wieseler, who supports it, the suggestion would scarcely deserve serious notice, that the reference here is not to the Temple-tribute, but to the Eoman poll- tax or census. Irrespective of the ques- tion whether a census was then levied in Galilee, the latter is designated bo.h iu St. Matt. xvii. 25, and in xxii. 17, as well as in St.Markxii. 14, as Krjva-os, while here the well-known expression didrachma is used. 'THEN ARE THE CHILDREN FREE.' 113 owing to His absence, or from principle, that He had not paid it last CHAP. Passover-season ? The question which they put to Peter implies, at ill least, their doubt. ' We have already seen what motives prompted the hasty reply of Peter. He might, indeed, also otherwise, in his rashness, have given an affirmative answer to the inquiry, without first consulting the Master. For there seems little doubt, that Jesus had on former occasions complied with the Jewish custom. But matters were now wholly changed. Since the first Passover, which had marked His first public appearance in the Temple at Jerusalem, He had stated — and quite lately in most explicit terms — that He was the Christ, the Son of God. To have now paid the Temple-tribute, without explana- tion, might have involved a very serious misapprehension. In view of all this, the history before us seems alike simple and natural. There is no pretext for the artificial construction put upon it by commentators, any more than for the suggestion, that such was the poverty of the Master and His disciples, that the small sum requisite for the Temple-tribute had to be miraculously supplied. We picture it to ourselves on this wise. Those who received the Tribute-money had come to Peter, and perhaps met him in the court or corridor, and asked him : 6 Your Teacher (Eabbi), does He not pay the didrachma ? ' While Peter hastily responded in the affirmative, and then entered into the house to procure the coin, or else to report what had passed, Jesus, Who had been in another part of the house, but was cognisant of all, ' anticipated him.' l Address- ing him in kindly language as ' Simon,' He pointed out the real state of matters by an illustration which must, of course, not be too literally pressed, and of which the meaning was : Whom does a King in- tend to tax for the maintenance of his palace and officers ? Surely not his own family, but others. The inference from this, as regarded the Temple-tribute, was obvious. As in all similar Jewish parabolic teaching, it was only indicated in general principle : ' Then are the children free.' But even so, be it as Peter had wished, although not from the same motive. Let no needless offence be given; for,, assuredly, they would not have understood the principle on which Christ would have refused the Tribute-money,2 and all misunder- 1 The Kevised Version, as it seems to of that word. me, rashly renders « spake first.' But the 2 In Succ. 30 a, we read a parable of a word (TrpofyQavtif) does not bear that mean- king who paid toll, and being asked the ing in any of the fifteen passages in the reason, replied that travellers were to LXX., where it corresponds to the learn by his example not to seek to Hebrew Kiddem, and means « to antici- withdraw themselves from paying the pate ' or ' to prevent ' in the archaic sense dues. VOL. II. I 114 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. • Shabb. 119 a, lines 20 &c. from top standing on the part of Peter was now impossible. Yet Christ would still further vindicate His royal title. He will pay for Peter, also, and pay as heaven's King with a Stater, or four-drachm piece, miraculously provided. Thus viewed, there is, we submit, a moral purpose and spiritual instruction in the provision of the Stater out of the fish's mouth. The rationalistic explanation of it need not be seriously considered ; for any mythical interpretation there is not the shadow of support in Biblical precedent or Jewish expectancy. But the narrative in its literality has a true and high meaning. And if we wished to mark the difference between its sober simplicity and the extravagances of legend, we would remind ourselves, not only of the well-known story of the King of Polycrates, but of two somewhat kindred Jewish Haggadahs. They are both intended to glorify the Jewish mode of Sab- bath observance. One of them bears that one Joseph, known as * the honourer ' of the Sabbath, had a wealthy heathen neighbour, to whom the Chaldaeans had prophesied that all his riches would come to Joseph. To render this impossible, the wealthy man converted all his property into one magnificent gem, which he carefully concealed within his head-gear. Then he took ship, so as for ever to avoid the dangerous vicinity of the Jew. But the wind blew his head-gear into the sea, and the gem was swallowed by a fish. And, lo ! it was the holy season, and they brought to the market a splendid fish. Who would purchase it but Joseph, for none as he would prepare to honour the day by the best which he could provide. But when they opened the fish, the gem was found in it — the moral being : ' He that borroweth for the Sabbath, the Sabbath will repay him.' a The other legend is similar. It was in Rome (in the Christian world) that a poor tailor went to market to buy a fish for a festive meal.1 Only one was on sale, and for it there was keen competition between the servant of the Prince and the Jew, the latter at last buying it for not less than twelve dinars. At the banquet, the Prince inquired of his servants why no fish had been provided. When he ascertained the cause, he sent for the Jew with the threat- ening inquiry, how a poor tailor could afford to pay twelve dinars for a fish ? ' My Lord,' replied the Jew, * there is a day on which all our sins are remitted us, and should we not honour it?' The answer satisfied the Prince. But God rewarded the Jew, for, when the fish 1 In the Midrash : * On the eve of the great fast ' (the Day of Atonement). But from the connection it is evidently in- tended to apply to the distinction to be put on the Sabbath-meal. THE DISPUTE BY THE WAY. 115 -was opened, a precious gem was found in it, which he sold, and ever afterwards lived of the proceeds.* The reader can scarcely fail to mark the absolute difference be- »Ber/Rn it in the light of the Resurrection-day, nay, almost incredible — evidently, the Apostles were still greatly under the influence of the )ld spirit. It was the common Jewish view, that there would be distinctions of rank in the Kingdom of Heaven. It can scarcely be i 2 116 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK necessary to prove this by Eabbinic quotations, since the whole iv system of Eabbinism and Pharisaism, with its separation from the vulgar and ignorant, rests upon it. But even within the charmed circle of Kabbinism, there would be distinctions, due to learning,, merit, and even to favouritism. In this world there were His special favourites, who could command anything at His hand, to use the • Taan. iii. B Kabbmic expression : ' like a spoilt child from its father.' a l And in the Messianic age (rod would assign booths to each according to his » Baba B. rank.b On the other hand, many passages could be quoted bearing on the duty of humility and self-abasement. But the stress laid on the merit attaching to this shows too clearly, that it was the pride that «Ber. 34 b apes humility. One instance,0 previously referred to, will suffice by way of illustration. When the child of the great Kabbi Jochanan ben Saccai was dangerously ill, he was restored through the prayer of one Chanina ben Dosa. On this the father of the child remarked to his wife : ' If the son of Saccai had all day long put his head be- tween his knees, no heed would have been given to him.' ' How is that ? ' asked his wife ; 4 is Chanina greater than thou ? ' * No,' was the reply, ' he is like a servant before the King, while I am like a prince before the King ' (he is always there, and has thus opportu- nities which I, as a lord, do not enjoy). How deep-rooted were such thoughts and feelings, appears not only from the dispute of the disciples by the way, but from the request proffered by the mother of Zebedee's children and her sons at a later period, in terrible contrast to the near Passion of our Lord.d It does, indeed, come upon us as a most painful surprise, and as sadly incongruous, this constant self-obtrusion, self-asser- tion, and low, carnal self-seeking; this Judaistic trifling in face of the utter self-abnegation and self-sacrifice of the Son of Man. Surely, the contrast between Christ and His disciples seems at times almost as great as between Him and the other Jews. If we would measure His Stature, or comprehend the infinite distance between His aims and teaching and those of His contemporaries, let it be by comparison with even the best of His disciples. It must have been part of His humiliation and self-exinanition to bear with them* And is it not, in a sense, still so as regards us all ? We have already seen, that there was quite sufficient occasion and material for such a dispute on the way from the Mount of Transfiguration to Capernaum. We suppose Peter to have only at 1 The almost blasphemous story of cessively objected to too little and too how Choni or Onias, ' the circle-drawer,' much, stands by no means alone in Tal- drew a circle around him, and refused to mudic legend, leave it till God had sent rain — and sue- 'HE THAT IS NOT AGAINST US, IS FOR US.' 117 the first been with the others. To judge by the later question, how CHAP. often he was to forgive the brother who had sinned against him, he in may have been so deeply hurt, that he left the other disciples, and hastened on with the Master, Who would, at any rate, sojourn in his house. For, neither he nor Christ seem to have been present when John and the others forbade the man, who would not follow with them, to cast out demons in Christ's name. Again, the other disciples only came into Capernaum, and entered the house, just as Peter had gone for the Stater, with which to pay the Temple-tribute for the Master and himself. And, if speculation be permissible, we would suggest that the brother, whose offences Peter found it so difficult to forgive, may have been none other than Judas. In such a dispute by the way, he, with his Judaistic views, would be specially interested ; perhaps he may have been its chief instigator ; certainly, he, whose natural character, amidst its sharp contrasts to that of Peter, presented so many points of resemblance to it, would, on many grounds, be specially jealous of, and antagonistic to him. Quite natural in view of this dispute by the way is another inci- dent of the journey, which is afterwards related. a As we judge, John ? st. Mark seems to have been the principal actor in it ; perhaps, in the absence st. Luke ix. of Peter, he claimed the leadership. They had met one who, in the Name of Christ, was casting out demons — whether successfully or not, we need scarcely inquire. So widely had faith in the power of Jesus extended; so real was the belief in the subjection of the demons to Him ; so reverent was the acknowledgment of Him. A man, who, thus forsaking the methods of Jewish exorcists, owned Jesus in the face of the Jewish world, could not be far from the Kingdom of Heaven ; at any rate, he could not quickly speak evil of Him. John had, in name of the disciples, forbidden him, because he had not cast in his lot wholly with them. It was quite in the spirit of their ideas about the Messianic Kingdom, and of their dispute, which of His close followers would be greatest there. And yet, they might deceive themselves as to the motives of their conduct. If it were not almost impertinence to use such terms, we would have said that there was infinite wisdom and kindness in the answer which the Saviour gave, when referred to on the subject. To forbid a man, in such circumstances, would be either prompted by the spirit of the dispute by the way — or else must be grounded on •evidence that the motive was, or the effect would ultimately be (as in the case of the sons of Sceva) to lead men 'to speak evil' of Christ, or to hinder the work of His disciples. Assuredly, such could not have been the case with a man, who invoked His Name, 118 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. » St. Luke ix. 50 » St. Matt, rii. 30 • St. Luke d St. Mark • in St. Mark and perhaps experienced its efficacy. More than this — and here is an eternal principle : * He that is not against us is for us ; ' he that opposeth not the disciples, really is for them — a saying still more clear, when we adopt the better reading in St. Luke,a 4 He that is not against you is for you.' l There was reproof in this, as well as instruction, deeply consistent with that other, though seemingly different, saying : b c He that is not with Me is against Me.' The distinction between them is twofold. In the one case it is c not against,' in the other it is ' not with ; ' but chiefly it lies in this : in the one case it is not against the disciples in their work, while in the other it is — not with Christ. A man who did what he could with such knowledge of Christ as he possessed, even although he did not absolutely follow with them, was e not against ' them. Such an one should be regarded as thus far with them ; at least be let alone, left to Him Who knew all things. Such a man would not lightly speak evil of Christ — and that was all the disciples should care for, unless, indeed, they sought their own. Quite other was it as regarded the relation of a person to the Christ Himself. There neutrality was impossible — and that which was not with Christ, by this very fact was against Him. The lesson is of the most deep-reaching character, and the distinction, alas ! still over- looked— perhaps, because ours is too often the spirit of those who journeyed to Capernaum. Not, that it is unimportant to follow with the disciples, but that it is not ours to forbid any work done, however imperfectly, in His Name, and that only one question is really vital —whether or not a man is decidedly with Christ. Such were the incidents by the way. And now, while withholding from Christ their dispute, and, indeed, anything that might seem personal in the question, the disciples, on entering the house where He was in Capernaum, addressed to Him this inquiry (which should be inserted from the opening words of St. Matthew's narrative) : * Who, then, is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven ? ' It was a general question — but Jesus perceived the thought of their heart ; c He knew about what they had disputed by the way,d and now asked them about it. The account of St. Mark is most graphic. We almost see the scene. Conscience-stricken * they hold their peace.' As we read the further words : e ' And He sat down,' it seems as if the 1 Readers of ordinary sobriety of judgment will form their opinions of the value of modern negative criticism, when we tell them that it has discovered in this man who did not follow with the disciples an allusion to ' Pauline Chris- tianity,' of which St. Mark took a more charitable view than St. Matthew ! By such treatment you may make anything of the facts of history. WHO IS GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM? 119 Master had at first gone to welcome the disciples on their arrival, CHAP. and they, ' full of their dispute,' had, without delay, addressed their HI inquiry to Him in the court or antechamber, where they met Him, when, reading their thoughts, He had first put the searching counter-question, what had been the subject of their dispute. Then, leading the way into the house, ' He sat down,' not only to answer their inquiry, which was not a real inquiry, but to teach them what so much they needed to learn. He called a little child — perhaps Peter's little son — and put him in the midst of them. Not to strive who was to be greatest, but to be utterly without self-consciousness, like a child — thus, to become turned and entirely changed in mind : 6 converted,' was the condition for entering into the Kingdom of Heaven. Then, as to the question of greatness there, it was really one of greatness of service — and that was greatest service which implied most self-denial. Suiting the action to the teaching, the Blessed Saviour took the happy child in His Arms. Not, to teach, to preach, to work miracles, nor to do great things, but to do the humblest service for Christ's sake — lovingly, earnestly, wholly, self- forgetfully, simply for Christ, was to receive Christ — nay, to receive the Father. And the smallest service, as it might seem — even the giving a cup of cold water in such spirit, would not lose its reward. Blessed teaching this to the disciples and to us ; blessed lesson, which, these many centuries of scorching heat, has been of unspeak- able refreshing, alike to the giver and the receiver of the cup of water in the Name of Christ, in the love of Christ, and for the sake of Christ.1 These words about receiving Christ, and < receiving in the Name of Christ,' had stirred the memory and conscience of John, and made him half wonder, half fear, whether what they had done by the way, in forbidding the man to do what he could in the Name of Christ, had been right. And so he told it, and received the further and higher teaching on the subject. And, more than this, St. Mark and, more fully, St. Matthew, record some further instruction in con- nection with it, to which St. Luke refers, in a slightly different form, at a somewhat later period.* But it seems so congruous to the «st. Luke present occasion, that we conclude it was then spoken, although, like other sayings,b it may have been afterwards repeated under bCoinp for similar circumstances.2 Certainly, no more effective continuation, st^Lkix. 50 with 1 Verbal parallels could easily be lies in its being so utterly un- Jewish. f £ Matt< v' quoted, and naturally so, since Jesus 2 Or else St. Luke may have gathered spoke as a Jew to Jews — but no real into connected discourses what may have parallel. Indeed, the point of the story been spoken at different times. 120 BOOK IV • Chethub. 69 6, line 18 from bottom *» Moed K. 10 b, first line « Kidd. 29 6, lines 10 and 9 from bottom i Vajjikra B. 26 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. and application to Jewish minde, of the teaching of our Lord could be conceived than that which follows. For, the love of Christ goes deeper than the condescension of receiving a child, utterly un-Phari- saic and un-Rabbinic as this is. To have regard to the weaknesses of such a child — to its mental and moral ignorance and folly, to adapt ourselves to it, to restrain our fuller knowledge and forego our felt liberty, so as not ' to offend ' — not to give occasion for stumbling to * one of these little ones,' that so through our knowledge the weak brother for whom Christ died should not perish: this is a lesson which reaches even deeper than the question, what is the condition of entrance into the Kingdom, or what service constitutes real greatness in it. A man may enter into the Kingdom and do service — yet, if in so doing he disregard the law of love to the little ones, far better his work should be abruptly cut short ; better, one of those large millstones, turned by an ass, were hung about his neck and he cast into the sea ! We pause to note, once more, the Judaic, and, therefore, evidential, setting of the Evangelic narrative. The Talmud also speaks of two kinds of millstones — the one turned by hand («nn D"m)5a referred to in St. Luke xvii. 35 ; the other turned by an ass (yauXos OVLKOS\ just as the Talmud speaks of 'the ass of the millstone ' (KWVI 'tDn)-b Similarly, the figure about a mill- stone hung round the neck occurs also in the Talmud — although there as figurative of almost insuperable difficulties.0 Again, the expression, ' it were better for him,' is a well-known Rabbinic expres- sion (Mutav hajah £o).d Lastly, according to St. Jerome, the punish- ment which seems alluded to in the words of Christ, and which we know to have been inflicted by Augustus, was actually practised by the Romans in Galilee on some of the leaders of the insurrection under Judas of Galilee. And yet greater guilt would only too surely be incurred ! Woe unto the world ! Occasions of stumbling and offence will surely come, but woe to the man through whom such havoc was wrought. What then is the alternative ? If it be a question as between offence and some part of ourselves, a limb or member, however use- ful— the hand, the foot, the eye — then let it rather be severed from the body, however painful, or however seemingly great the loss. It cannot be so great as that of the whole being in the eternal fire of Ge- henna, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.1 Be 1 St. Mark ix. 44, the last clause of ver. 45, and ver. 46, seem to be spurious. But ver. 48, as well as the expression « fire that never shall be quenched,' and in St. Mat- thew, ' everlasting fire,' are on all hands admitted to be genuine. The question of 'EVERY ONE SHALL BE SALTED FOR THE FIRE.' 121 it hand, foot, or eye — practice, pursuit, or research — which consciously CHAP. leads us to occasions of stumbling, it must be resolutely put aside in in view of the incomparably greater loss of eternal remorse and anguish. Here St. Mark abruptly breaks off with a sentence in which the Saviour makes general application. But the narrative is further continued by St. Matthew. The words are so remarkable, so brief, we had almost said truncated, as to require special consideration. It seems to us that, turning from this thought, that even members which are intended for useful service may, in certain circumstances, have to be cut off to avoid the greatest loss, the Lord gave to His disciples this as the final summary and explanation of all : ' For every one shall be salted for the fire ' l — or, as a very early gloss, which has strangely crept into the text,2 paraphrased and explained it, ' Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.' No one is fit for the sacrificial fire, no one can be, or offer anything as a sacrifice, unless it have been first, according to the Levitical Law, covered with salt, symbolic of the incorruptible. * Salt is good ; but if the salt,' with which the spiritual sacrifice is to be salted for the fire, ' have lost its savour, wherewith will ye season it ? ' Hence, ' have salt in yourselves,' but do not let that salt be corrupted by making it an occasion of offence to others, or among yourselves, as in the dispute by the way, or in the disposition of mind that led to it, or in forbid- ding others to work who follow not with you, but 'be at peace among yourselves.' To this explanation of the words of Christ it may, perhaps, be added that, from their form, they must have conveyed a special mean- ing to the disciples. It was a well-known law, that every sacrifice burned on the Altar must be salted with salt.a Indeed, according to » Lev. n. is the Talmud, not only every such offering, but even the wood with which the sacrificial fire was kindled, was sprinkled with salt.b Salt symbolised to the Jews of that time the incorruptible and the higher. Thus, the soul was compared to the salt, and it was said concerning the dead: 'Shake off the salt, and throw the flesh to the dogs.' c chag. 12 classes, stood outside and awaited His behest.b The distinction which E! Eiies. 4 the former enjoyed was always to behold His Face, and to hear and know directly the Divine counsels and commands. This distinction was, therefore, one of knowledge ; Christ taught that it was one of love. Not the more exalted in knowledge, and merit, or worth, but the simpler, the more unconscious of self, the more receptive and cling- ing— the nearer to God. Look up from earth to heaven ; those re- presentative, it may be, guardian, Angels nearest to God, are not those of deepest knowledge of God's counsel and commands, but those of simple, humble grace and faith — and so learn, not only not to despise one of these little ones, but who is truly greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven ! Viewed in this light, there is nothing incongruous in the trans- ition : * For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost.' This, His greatest condescension when He became the Babe of Beth- lehem, is also His greatest exaltation. He Who is nearest the Father, and, in the most special and unique sense, always beholds His Face, is He that became a Child, and, as the Son of Man,, stoops lowest, to save that which was lost. The words are, indeed,, regarded as spurious by most critics, because certain leading manu- scripts omit them, and they are supposed to have been imported from St. Luke xix. 10. But such a transference from a context wholly unconnected with this section 3 seems unaccountable, while, on the other hand, the verse in question forms, not only an apt, but almost necessary, transition to the Parable of the Lost Sheep. It seems, therefore, difficult to eliminate it without also striking out 1 rh T&D ''NDl 'Hp 'O Nr6v3 — 'the 2 See the Appendix on ' Angelology and salt, when it becomes ill-savouring, with Demonology.' what shall it be seasoned ? ' The passage 3 Except that the history of Zacchseus^ occurs in a very curious Haggadah, and in which the words occur, is really an ap- the objection that salt would not become plication to real life of the Parable of the ill-savouring, would not apply to the Lost Sheep, proverb in the form given it by Christ. ON FORGIVENESS TO A 'BROTHER.' 123 that Parable ; and yet it fits most beautifully into the whole context. Suffice it for the present to note this. The Parable itself is more fully repeated in another connection,21 in which it will be more convenient to consider it. Yet a further depth of Christian love remained to be shown, which, all self-forgetful, sought not its own but the things of others. This also bore on the circumstances of the time, and the dispute between the disciples, but went far beyond it, and set forth eternal principles. Hitherto it had been a question of not seeking self, nor minding great things, but, Christ-like and God-like, to condescend to the little ones. What if actual wrong had been done, and just offence given, by a < brother ' ? In such case, also, the principle of the Kingdom — which, negatively, is that of self-forgetfulness, posi- tively, that of service of love — would first seek the good of the offending brother. We mark, here, the contrast to Rabbinism, which directs that the first overtures must be made by the offender, not the offended ; b and even prescribes this to be done in presence of b Yoma viii. numerous witnesses, and, if needful, repeated three times.0 As re- gards the duty of showing to a brother his fault, and the delicate tenderness of doing this in private, so as not to put him to shame, Rabbinism speaks the same as the Master of Nazareth.d In fact, according to Jewish criminal law, punishment could not be inflicted unless the offender (even the woman suspected of adultery) had pre- viously been warned before witnesses. Yet, in practice, matters were very different; and neither could those be found who would take re- proof, nor yet such as were worthy to administer it.e e Arach- a *• Quite other was it in the Kingdom of Christ, where the theory was left undefined, but the practice clearly marked. Here, by loving dealing to convince of his wrong him who had done it, was not humiliation nor loss of dignity or of right, but real gain : the gain of our brother to us, and eventually to Christ Himself. But even if this should fail, the offended must not desist from his service of love, but conjoin in it others with himself to give weight and authority to his remonstrances, as not being the outcome of personal feeling or pre- judice— perhaps, also, to be witnesses before the Divine tribunal. If this failed, a final appeal should be made on the part of the Church as a whole, which, of course, could only be done through her repre- sentatives and rulers, to whom Divine authority had been committed. And if that were rejected, the offer of love would, as always in the Gospel, pass into danger of judgment. Not, indeed, that such was to be executed by man, but that such an offender, after the first and 124 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK second admonition, was to be rejected.* He was to be treated as was IV the custom in regard to a heathen or a publican — not persecuted, » THUS iii.~iu despised, or avoided, but not received in Church-fellowship (a heathen), nor admitted to close familiar intercourse (a publican). And this, as we understand it, marks out the mode of what is called Church discipline in general, and specifically as regards wrong done to a brother. Discipline so exercised (which may God restore to us) has the highest Divine sanction, and the most earnest reality attaches to it. For, in virtue of the authority which Christ had committed to the Church in the persons of her rulers and representatives,1 what they bound or loosed — declared obligatory or non-obligatory — was ratified in heaven. Nor was this to be wondered at. The Incarnation of Christ was the link which bound earth to heaven ; through it what- ever was agreed upon in the fellowship of Christ, as that which was to * st. Matt, "be asked, would be done for them of His Father Which was in heaven.b xviii. 19 Thus, the power of the Church reached up to heaven through the power of prayer in His Name Who made God our Father. And so, beyond the exercise of discipline and authority, there was the omnipotence of prayer — ' if two of you shall agree ... as touching anything ... it shall be done for them ' — and, with it, the infinite possibility of a higher service of love. For, in the smallest gathering in the Name of Christ, His Presence would be,2 and with it the « st. Matt certainty of nearness to, and acceptance with, God.c It is bitterly disappointing that, after such teaching, even a Peter could — either immediately afterwards, or perhaps after he had had time to think it over, and apply it — come to the Master with the question, how often he was to forgive an offending brother, imagining that he had more than satisfied the new requirements, if he extended it to seven times. Such traits show better than elaborate discussions the need of the mission and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. And yet there is something touching in the simplicity and honesty with which Peter goes to the Master, with such a misapprehension of His 1 It is both curious and interesting to have been the delegates of the Church, find that the question, whether the but must be those of God. (See the Priests exercised their functions as « the essay by DelitzscTi in the Zeitschr. f iir sent of God ' or ' the sent of the congre- Luther. Theol. for 1854, pp. 446-449.) gation' — that is, held their commission 2 The Mishnah (Ab. iii. 2), and the directly from God, or only as being the Talmud (Ber. 6 a), infer from Mai. iii. representatives of the people, is discussed 16, that, when two are together and already in the Talmud (Yoma 18 & £c. ; occupy themselves with the Law, the Nedar. 35 &). The Talmud replies that, Shechinah is between them. Similarly, as it is impossible to delegate what one it is argued from Lament, iii. 28, and does not possess, and since the laity might Exod. xx. 21, that if even one alone is en- neither offer sacrifices nor do any like gaged in such pursuits, God is with him service, the Priests could not possibly and will bless him. FORGIVENESS, NOT QUANTITATIVE BUT QUALITATIVE. 125 teaching, as if he had fully entered into its spirit. Surely, the new CHAP. wine was bursting the old bottles. It was a principle of Eabbinism in that, even if the wrongdoer had made full restoration, he would not obtain forgiveness till he had asked it of him whom he had wronged, but that it was cruelty in such circumstances to refuse pardon.a The »BabaK. Jerusalem Talmud b adds the beautiful remark : 6 Let this be a token „ Je'r Baba in thine hand — each time that thou showest mercy, God will show K< 6 c mercy on thee; and if thou showest not mercy, neither will Grod show mercy on thee.' And yet it was a settled rule, that forgiveness should not be extended more than three times.c Even so, the cYoma86& practice was terribly different. The Talmud relates, without blame, the conduct of a Eabbi, who would not forgive a very small slight of his dignity, though asked by the offender for thirteen successive years, and that on the Day of Atonement — the reason being, that the offended Rabbi had learned by a dream that his offending brother would attain the highest dignity, whereupon he feigned himself irreconcilable, to force the other to migrate from Palestine to Babylon, where, unenvied by him, he might occupy the chief place ! d d Yoma 87 b And so it must have seemed to Peter, in his ignorance, quite a stretch of charity to extend forgiveness to seven, instead of three offences. It did not occur to him, that the very act of numbering offences marked an externalism which had never entered into, nor comprehended, the spirit of Christ. Until seven times ? Nay, until seventy times seven ! l The evident purport of these words was to efface all such landmarks. Peter had yet to learn, what we, alas ! too often forget : that as Christ's forgiveness, so that of the Christian, must not be computed by numbers. It is qualitative, not quantitative : Christ forgives sin, not sins — and he who has experienced it, follows in His footsteps.2 1 It makes no difference in the ar- 2 The Parable, with which the account gument, whether we translate seventy in St. Matthew closes, will be explained by times seven, or else seventy times and and by in the Second Series of Parables, seven. 126 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK IV * St. Jolui vii. to x. * x. 22-42 c St. Matt. xx. 17 &c. ; St. Mark x. 32 &c. ; St. Luke xvii. 11 &c. dSt.Johnxi. xi. 54 ' St. Luke iv. 1; v.16 vii. 24 8 St. Luke viii. 29 CHAPTER IV. THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM — CHRONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE LAST PART OF THE GOSPEL-NARRATIVES — FIRST INCIDENTS BY THE WAY. (St. John vii. 1-16; St. Luke ix. 1-56; 57-62 ; St. Matthew viii. 19-22.) THE part in the Evangelic History which we have now reached has this peculiarity and difficulty, that the events are recorded by only one of the Evangelists. The section in St. Luke's Grospel from chap. ix. 51 to chap, xviii. 14 stands absolutely alone. From the circumstance that St. Luke omits throughout his narrative all notation of time or place, the difficulty of arranging here the chrono- logical succession of events is so great, that we can only suggest what seems most probable, without feeling certain of the details. Happily, the period embraced is a short one, while at the same time the narrative of St. Luke remarkably fits into that of St. John. St. John mentions three appearances of Christ in Jerusalem at that period : at the Feast of Tabernacles,* at that of the Dedication,1* and His final entry, which is referred to by all the other Evangelists.0 And, while the narrative of St. John confines itself exclusively to what happened in Jerusalem or its immediate neighbourhood, it also either mentions or gives sufficient indication that on two out of these three occasions Jesus left Jerusalem for the country east of the Jordan (St. John x. 19-21 ; St. John x. 39 to 43, where the words in verse 39, 'they sought again to take Him,' point to a previous similar attempt and flight). Besides these, St. John also records a journey to Bethany — though not to Jerusalem — for the raising of Lazarus,d and after that a council against Christ in Jerusalem, in consequence of which He with- drew out of Judsean territory into a district near ' the wilderness ' e — as we infer, that in the north, where John had been baptizing and Christ been tempted, and whither He had afterwards withdrawn/ We regard this c wilderness ' as on the western bank of the Jordan, and extending northward towards the western shore of the Lake of Gralil©e.g If St. John relates three appearances of Jesus at this time in THE PER^EAN MINISTRY. 127 Jerusalem, St. Luke records three journeys to Jerusalem,51 the last of which agrees, in regard to its starting-point, with the notices of the other Evangelists,b always supposing that we have correctly in- dicated the locality of ' the wilderness ' whither, according to St. John xi. 54, Christ retired previous to His last journey to Jerusalem. In this respect, although it is impossible with our present infor- mation to localise ' the City of Ephraim,' the statement that it was ' near the wilderness,' affords us sufficient general notice of its situa- tion. For, the New Testament speaks of only two 6 wildernesses,' that of Judsea in the far South, and that in the far North of Persea, or perhaps in the Decapolis, to which St. Luke refers as the scene of the Baptist's labours, where Jesus was tempted, and whither He after- wards withdrew. We can, therefore, have little doubt that St. John refers c to this district. And this entirely accords with the notices c in st. John by the other Evangelists of Christ's last journey to Jerusalem, as through the borders of Gralilee and Samaria, and then across the Jordan, and by Bethany to Jerusalem. It follows (as previously stated) that St. Luke's account of the three journeys to Jerusalem fits into the narrative of Christ's three appearances in Jerusalem as described by St. John. And the unique section in St. Luked supplies the record of what took place before, <'st. Luke> during, and after those journeys, of which the upshot is told by St. u John. Thus much seems certain; the exact chronological succes- sion must be, in part, matter of suggestion. But we have now some insight into the plan of St. Luke's Grospel, as compared with that of the others. We see that St. Luke forms a kind of transition, is a sort of connecting link between the other two Synoptists6 ^ew^nd and St. John. This is admitted even by negative critics/ The st- Mark Gospel by St. Matthew has for its main object the Discourses or LefEvan""' teaching of the Lord, around which the History groups itself. It is 8 intended as a demonstration, primarily addressed to the Jews, and in a form peculiarly suited to them, that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the Living Grod. The Grospel by St. Mark is a rapid survey of the History of the Christ as such. It deals mainly with the Galilean Ministry. The Grospel by St. John, which gives the highest, the reflective, view of the Eternal Son as the Word, deals almost exclusively with the Jerusalem Ministry.1 And the Grospel by St. Luke complements the narratives in the other two Grospels (St. Matthew and St. Mark), and it supplements them by tracing, what 1 This seems unaccountable on the modern negative theory of its being an Ephesian Oospel. 128 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK is not done otherwise : the Ministry in Percea. Thus, it also forms iv a transition to the Fourth Gospel of the Judsean Ministry. If we may venture a step further : The Gospel by St. Mark gives the general view of the Christ ; that by St. Matthew the Jewish, that by St. Luke the Gentile, and that by St. John the Church's view. Imagi- nation might, indeed, go still further, and see the impress of the number five — that of the Pentateuch and the Book of Psalms — in the First Gospel ; the numeral four (that of the world) in the Second Gospel (4 x 4= 16 chapters); that of three in the Third (8 x 3 = 24 chapters); and that of seven, the sacred Church number, in the Fourth Gospel (7 x 3 = 21 chapters). And perhaps we might even succeed in arranging the Gospels into corresponding sections.1 But this would lead, not only beyond our present task, but from solid history and exegesis into the regions of speculation. The subject, then, primarily before us, is the journeying of Jesus to Jerusalem. In that wider view which St. Luke takes of this whole history, he presents what really were three separate journeys as one — that towards the great end. In its conscious aim and object, all — from the moment of His finally quitting Galilee to His final Entry into Jerusalem — formed, in the highest sense, only one journey. ixSt;-i'uke ^nc^ ^S ^' IjUke designates in a peculiar manner. Just as a he had spoken, not of Christ's Death but of His ' Exodus,' or outgoing, which included His Kesurrection and Ascension, so he now tells us that, ' when the days of His uptaking ' — including and pointing to His Ascension 2 — 4 were being fulfilled, He also 3 steadfastly set 4 His Face to go to Jerusalem.' St. John, indeed, goes farther back, and speaks of the circum- stances which preceded His journey to Jerusalem. There is an interval, or, as we might term it, a blank, of more than half a year between the last narrative in the Fourth Gospel and this. For, the events chronicled in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel took place » st. John immediately before the Passover ,b which was on the fifteenth day of the first ecclesiastical month (Nisari), while the Feast of Taber- 1 Of course, putting aside the question The curious interpretation of Wieseler of the arrangement into chapters, the would not even call for notice, if it had reader might profitably make the experi- not the authority of his name. ment of arranging the Gospels into 3 The word KOI, strangely omitted in parts and sections, nor could he have a translations, denotes Christ's full deter- better guide to help his own investiga- mination by the side of the fulfilment of tions than Canon Westcotfs Introduction the time, to the Study of the Gospels. 4 The term is used in the LXX. as 2 The substantive avdx-n^is occurs only denoting firmly setting. In connection in this place, but the cognate verb re- with irplffwirov it occurs twelve times, peatedly, as referring to the Ascension. 'THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES WAS AT HAND/ 129 nacles a began on the same day of the seventh ecclesiastical month (Tishri). But, except in regard to the commencement of Christ's Ministry, that sixth chapter is the only one in the Gospel of St. aSt.j0hn John which refers to the Galilean Ministry of Christ. We would vii-2 suggest, that what it records is partly intended l to exhibit, by the side of Christ's fully developed teaching, the fully developed enmity of the Jerusalem Scribes, which led even to the defection of many former disciples. Thus, chapter vi. would be a connecting-link (both as regards the teaching of Christ and the opposition to Him) between chapter v., which tells of His visit at ; the Unknown Feast,' and chapter vii., which records that at the Feast of Tabernacles. The six or seven months between the Feast of Passover b and that of b.st- John vi. Tabernacles,0 and all that passed within them, are covered by this e st. John brief remark : ' After these things Jesus walked in Galilee : for He V1U would not walk in Judaea, because the Jews [the leaders of the people 2] sought to kill Him.' But now the Feast of Tabernacles was at hand. The pilgrims would probably arrive in Jerusalem before the opening day of the Festival. For, besides the needful preparations — which would require time, especially on this Feast, when booths had to be constructed in which to live during the festive week — it was (as we remember) the common practice to offer such sacrifices as might have previously become due at any of the great Feasts to which the people might go up.3 Eemembering that five months had elapsed since the last great Feast (that of Weeks), many such sacrifices must have been due. Accordingly, the ordinary festive companies of pilgrims, wiiich would travel slowly, must have started from Galilee some time be- fore the beginning of the Feast. These circumstances fully explain the details of the narrative. They also afford another most painful illustration of the loneliness of Christ in His Work. His disciples had failed to understand, they misapprehended His teaching. In the near prospect of His Death they either displayed gross ignorance, or else disputed about their future rank. And His own ' brethren ' did not believe in Him. The whole course of late events, especially the unmet challenge of the Scribes for fi a sign from heaven,' had 1 Other and deeper reasons will also festive lectures commenced in the Aca- suggest themselves, and have been hinted demies thirty days before each of the at when treating of this event. great Feasts. Those who attended them 2 The term ' Jews ' is generally used by were called Benej Rigid, in distinction St. John in that sense. to the Benej Challah, who attended the 3 According to Baba K. 113 a, regular regular Sabbath lectures. VOL. II. K 130 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK deeply shaken them. What was the purpose of ' works,' if done in iv the privacy of the circle of Christ's Apostles, in a house, a remote district, or even before an ignorant multitude ? If, claiming to be the Messiah, He wished to be openly l known as such, He must take other means. If He really did these things, let Him manifest Himself before the world — in Jerusalem, the capital of their world, and before those who could test the reality of His Works. Let Him come forward, at one of Israel's great Feasts, in the Temple, and especially at this Feast which pointed to the Messianic ingathering of all nations. Let Him go up with them into Judaea, that so His disciples — not the Galileans only, but all — might have the oppor- tunity of ' gazing '2 on His Works.3 As the challenge was not new,4 so, from the worldly point of view, it can scarcely be called unreasonable. It is, in fact, the same in principle as that to which the world would now submit the claims of Christianity to men's acceptance. It has only this one fault, that it ignores the world's enmity to the Christ. Discipleship is not the result of any outward manifestation by * evidences ' or demonstration. It requires the conversion of a child-like spirit. To manifest Him- self! This truly would He do, though not in their way. For this 6 the season ' 5 had not yet come, though it would soon arrive. Their 6 season ' — that for such Messianic manifestations as they contem- plated— was fi always ready.' And this naturally, for * the world r could not ' hate ' them ; they and their demonstrations were quite in accordance with the world and its views. But towards Him the world cherished personal hatred, because of their contrariety of prin- ciple, because Christ was manifested, not to restore an earthly king- dom to Israel, but to bring the Heavenly Kingdom upon earth — ' to destroy the works of the Devil.' Hence, He must provoke the enmity of that world which lay in the Wicked One. Another manifestation than that which they sought would He make, when His * season was fulfilled ; ' soon, beginning at this very Feast, continued at the next, and completed at the last Passover ; such manifestation of Himself as the Christ, as could alone be made in view of the essential enmity of the world. And so He let them go up in the festive company, while Himself tarried. When the noise and publicity (which He wished to avoid) 1 The same term JODmQ (Parhesja) is peculiarly Hebraistic. occurs in Rabbinic language. 4 See especially the cognate occurrence 2 The verb is the significant one, and expressions at the marriage feast in e', Saken (Elder) inscribed on them, while the mode of electing these Seventy is thus two were blanks. The latter are sup- described. Moses chose six from every posed to have been drawn by Eldad and tribe, and then put into an urn seventy- Medad. two . lots, of which seventy had the word 2 Comp. Sanh. i. 6. DIRECTIONS TO THE SEVENTY. 137 as that to the appointment and mission of the Twelve Apostles ; a and it may have been, that words kindred had preceded both. Partially, indeed, the expressions reported in St. Luke x. 2 had been em- ployed long before.b Those 'multitudes' throughout Israel — nay, ^gt Johniy those also which ' are not of that flock ' — appeared to His view like 35 sheep without a true shepherd's care, ' distressed and prostrate,' l and their mute misery and only partially conscious longing appealed, and not in vain, to His Divine compassion. This constituted the ultimate ground of the Mission of the Apostles, and now of that of the Seventy, into a harvest that was truly great. Compared with the extent of the field, and the urgency of the work, how few were the labourers ! Yet, as the field was God's, so also could He alone < thrust forth labourers ' willing and able to do His work, while it must be ours to pray that He would be pleased to do so. On these introductory words,6 which ever since have formed ' the c st. Luke x. bidding prayer ' of the Church in her work for Christ, followed the commission and special directions to the thirty-five pairs of disciples who went on this embassy. In almost every particular they are the same as those formerly given to the Twelve.2 We mark, however, that both the introductory and the concluding words addressed to the Apostles are wanting in what was said to the Seventy. It was not necessary to warn them against going to the Samaritans, since the direction of the Seventy was to those cities of Persea and Judaea, on the road to Jerusalem, through which Christ was about to pass. Nor were they armed with precisely the same supernatural powers as the Twelve.d Naturally, the personal directions as to their conduct were d st. Matt. in both cases substantially the same. We mark only three pecu- st.iAex.9 liarities in those addressed to the Seventy. The direction to < salute no man by the way ' was suitable to a temporary and rapid mission, which might have been sadly interrupted by making or renewing acquaintances. Both the Mishnah e and the Talmud f lay it down, e Ber. 30 6 that prayer was not to be interrupted to salute even a king, nay, f u> s- 32 b to uncoil a serpent that had wound round the foot.3 On the other hand, the Kabbis discussed the question, whether the reading of the Shema and of the portion of the Psalms called the Hallel might be interrupted at the close of a paragraph, from respect for a person, or interrupted in the middle, from motives of fear.g All agreed, that «Ber.ua immediately before prayer no one should be saluted, to prevent 1 The first word means literally ' torn.' 2 See Book III. ch. xxvii. The second occurs sixty-two times in the 8 But it might be interrupted for a LXX. as equivalent for the Hebrew scorpion, Ber. 33 a. Comp. page 141, (Hiphil) Hishlich, projicio, abjicio. note 1. 138 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. » St. Luke x. « St. Matt. x. 13 <* St. Luke x. 7,8 » St. Matt, xi. 16-42 f St. Luke x. 13-16 ? St. Matt. xi. 20-24 distraction, and it was advised rather to summarise or to cut short than to break into prayer, though the latter might be admissible in case of absolute necessity.* None of these provisions, however, seems to have been in the mind of Christ. If any parallel is to be sought, it would be found in the similar direction of Elisha to Grehazi, when sent to lay the prophet's staff on the dead child of the Shunammite. The other two peculiarities in the address to the Seventy seem verbal rather than real. The expression,1* ' if the Son of Peace be there,' is a Hebraism, equivalent to fi if the house be worthy,' c and refers to the character of the head of the house and the tone of the household.1 Lastly, the direction to eat and drink such things as were set before them d is only a further explanation of the command to abide in the house which had received them, without seeking for better entertainment.2 On the other hand, the whole most important close of the address to the Twelve — which, indeed, forms by far the largest part of it e — is wanting in the commission to the Seventy, thus clearly marking its merely temporary character. In St. Luke's GTospel, the address to the Seventy is followed by a denunciation of Chorazin and Bethsaida.f This is evidently in its right place there, after the Ministry of Christ in Ofalilee had been completed and finally rejected. In St. Matthew's Grospel, it stands (for a reason already indicated) immediately after the Lord's rebuke of the popular rejection of the Baptist's message.8 The ' woe '-pro- nounced on those cities, in which £ most of His mighty works were done,' is in proportion to the greatness of their privileges. The denunciation of Chorazin and Bethsaida is the more remarkable, that Chorazin is not otherwise mentioned in the Gospels, nor yet any miracles recorded as having taken place in (the western) Beth- saida. From this two inferences seem inevitable. First, this history must be real. If the whole were legendary, Jesus would not be represented as selecting the names of places, which the writer had not connected with the legend. Again, apparently no record has been preserved in the Grospels of most of Christ's miracles — only those being narrated, which were necessary in order to present Jesus 1 Comp. Job xxi. 9, both in the original and the Targum. - Canon Cook (ad loc.) regards this as evidence that the Seventy were also sent to the Samaritans ; and as implying per- mission to eat of their food, which the Jews held to be forbidden. To me it conveys the opposite, since so fundamen- tal an alteration would not have been introduced in such an indirect manner. Besides, the direction is not to eat their food, but any kind of food. Lastly, if Christ had introduced so vital a change, the later difficulty of St. Peter, and the vision on the subject, would not be intelligible. THE RETURN OF THE SEVENTY. 139 as the Christ, in accordance with the respective plans on which each of the Grospels was constructed.* As already stated, the denunciations were in proportion to the »st. John" privileges, and hence to the guilt, of the unbelieving cities. Chorazin xxi' 25 and Bethsaida are compared with Tyre and Sidon, which under similar admonitions would have repented,1 while Capernaum, which, as for so long the home of Jesus, had truly c been exalted to heaven,' 2 is compared with Sodom. And such guilt involved greater punish- ment. The very site of Bethsaida and Chorazin cannot be fixed with certainty. The former probably represents the ' Fisherton ' of Capernaum,3 the latter seems to have almost disappeared from the shore of the Lake. St. Jerome places it two miles from Capernaum, If so, it may be represented by the modern Kerazeh, somewhat to the north-west of Capernaum. The site would correspond with the name. For Kerazeh is at present c a spring with an insignificant ruin above it,'4 and the name Chorazin may well be derived from Cheroz (t^s) a water-jar — Cherozin, or ; Chorazin,' the water-jars. If so, we can readily understand that the ' Fisherton ' on the south side of Capernaum, and the well-known springs, ' Chorazin,' on the other side of it, may have been the frequent scene of Christ's miracles. This explains also, in part, why the miracles there wrought had not been told as well as those done in Capernaum itself. In the Talmud a Chorazin, or rather Chorzim, is mentioned as celebrated for its wheat.b But as for Capernaum itself — standing on that vast field of ruins and upturned stones which marks the site of the jvetf&a«er, p. 220 modern Tell Hum, we feel that no description of it could be more pictorially true than that in which Christ prophetically likened the city in its downfall to the desolateness of death and ' Hades.' Whether or not the Seventy actually returned to Jesus before the Feast of Tabernacles,5 it is convenient to consider in this connection the result of their Mission. It had filled them with the e joy ' of assur- ance ; nay, the result had exceeded their expectations, just as their faith had gone beyond the mere letter unto the spirit of His Words. As they reported it to Him, even the demons had been subject to them through His Name. In this they had exceeded the letter of Christ's 1 Fasting ' in sackcloth and ashes ' no meaning. We have, therefore, adopted was the practice in public humiliations the reading of Alford, Meyer, &c., which (Taan. ii. 1). only differs in tense from the A. V. 2 The K. V., following what are re- 3 See Book III. ch. xxxi. garded as some of the best MSS., renders 4 Canon Tristram. it interrogatively : ' Shalt thou be ex- 5 Godet infers this from the use of the alted,' &c. ? But such a question is not word 'returned,' St. Luke x. 17. only without precedent, but really yields 140 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK commission ; but as they made experiment of it, their faith had IV grown, and they had applied His command to £ heal the sick ' to the worst of all sufferers, those grievously vexed by demons. And, as always, their faith was not disappointed. Nor could it be otherwise. The great contest had been long decided ; it only remained for the faith of the Church to gather the fruits of that Prince. The victory of Light and Life had vanquished the Prince of Darkness and Death. •st. John The prince of this world must be cast out.a In spirit, Christ gazed on * Satan fallen as lightning from heaven.' As one has aptly para- phrased it : l While you cast out his subjects, I saw the prince him- self fall. It has been asked, whether the words of Christ referred to any particular event, such as His Victory in the Temptation.2 But any such limitation would imply grievous misunderstanding of the whole. So to speak, the fall of Satan is to the bottomless pit ; ever going on to the final triumph of Christ. As the Lord beholds him, he is fallen from heaven — from the seat of power and of worship ; for, his mastery is broken by the Stronger than he. And he is fallen like lightning, 7-5|v' xii' in ^'s rapidity, dazzling splendour, and destructiveness.b Yet as we perceive it, it is only demons cast out in His Name. For, still is this fight and sight continued to all ages of the present dispensation. Each time the faith of the Church casts out demons — whether as they formerly, or as they presently vex men, whether in the lighter combat about possession of the body, or in the sorer fight about possession of the soul — as Christ beholds it, it is ever Satan fallen. For, He sees of the travail of His soul, and is satisfied ! And so also is there joy in heaven over every sinner that repenteth. The authority and power over ' the demons,' attained by faith,, was not to pass away with the occasion that had called it forth. The Seventy were the representatives of the Church in her work of pre- paring for the Advent of Christ. As already indicated, the sight of Satan fallen from heaven is the continuous history of the Church. What the faith of the Seventy had attained was now to be made permanent to the Church, whose representatives they were. For, the words in which Christ now gave authority and power to tread on a serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the Enemy, and the promise that nothing should hurt them, could not have been addressed to the Seventy for a Mission which had now come to an 1 Godet, ad loc. else, do we mark not only difference, but 2 So far from seeing here, with Wunsche contrast, to Jewish views. (ad loc.), Jewish notions about Satan, I s The word over (' on,' A. V.) must be hold that in the Satanology of the New connected with « power.' Testament, perhaps more than anywhere THE THANKSGIVING OF CHRIST. 141 end, except in so far as they represented the Church Universal. It CHAP. is almost needless to add, that those * serpents and scorpions ' are v not to be literally but symbolically understood.21 1 Yet it is not this power and authority which is to be the main joy either of the Church or the individual, but 2 the fact that our names are written in heaven.3 And so Christ brings us back to His great teaching about the need of becoming children, and wherein lies the secret of true greatness in the Kingdom. It is beautifully in the spirit of all this, when we read that the joy of the disciples was met by that of the Master, and that His teach- ing presently merged into a prayer of thanksgiving. Throughout the occurrences since the Transfiguration, we have noticed an in- creasing antithesis to the teaching of the Rabbis. But it almost reached its climax in the thanksgiving, that the Father in heaven had hid these things from the wise and the understanding, and re- vealed them unto babes. As we view it in the light of those times, we know that c the wise and understanding ' — the Rabbi and the Scribe — could not, from their standpoint, have perceived them ; nay, that it is matter of never-ending thanks that, not what they, but what ; the babes,' understood, was — as alone it could be — the subject of the Heavenly Father's revelation. We even tremble to think how it would have fared with 'the babes,' if 'the wise and understanding' had had part with them in the knowledge revealed. And so it must ever be, not only the law of the Kingdom and the fundamental principle of Divine Revelation, but matter for thanksgiving, that, not as e wise and understanding,' but only as ' babes' — as 'converted,' ' like chil- dren'— we can share in that knowledge which maketh wise unto salvation. And this truly is the Gospel, and the Father's good pleasure.4 The words,b with which Christ turned from this Address to the t> st, Luke x. Seventy and thanksgiving to Grod, seem almost like the Father's answer to the prayer of the Son. They refer to, and explain, the authority which Jesus had bestowed on His Church : c All things were delivered 5 to Me of My Father ; ' and they afford the highest I presume, that in the same symbol- 3 The figure is one current in Scripture 1 sense must be understood the Hag- (comp. Exod. xxxii. 32 ; Is. iv. 3 ; Dan. iah about a great Kabbinic Saint, xii. 1). But the Kabbis took it in a horn a serpent bit without harming grossly literal manner, and spoke of three im, and then immediately died. The books opened every New Year's Day — bbi brought it to his disciples with the those of the pious, the wicked, and the >rds: It is not the serpent that killeth, intermediate (Rosh haSh. 16 b). but sin (Ber. 33 a). * This is a common Jewish formula : 2 The word 'rather' in the A. V. is "pjg^> »iv~l- spurious. 5 The tense should here be marked. 142 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK rationale for the fact, that these things had been hid from the wise iv and revealed unto babes. For, as no man, only the Father, could have ~" ' full knowledge of the Son, and, conversely, no man, only the Son, had true knowledge of the Father, it followed, that this knowledge came to us, not of wisdom or learning, but only through the Kevela- tion of Christ : ' No one knoweth Who the Son is, save the Father ; and Who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him.' St. Matthew, who also records this — although in a different connection, immediately after the denunciation of the unbelief of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum — concludes this section by words which have ever since been the grand text of those who, following in the wake of the Seventy, have been ambassadors for Christ.a On the other hand, St. Luke concludes this part of his bst. Lukex. narrative by adducing words equally congruous to the occasion,b which, indeed, are not new in the mouth of the Lord.c From their c Comp. St. Matt.xiii.i6 suitableness to what had preceded, we can have little doubt that both that which St. Matthew, and that which St. Luke, reports was spoken on this occasion. Because knowledge of the Father came only through the Son, and because these things were hidden from the wise and revealed to ' babes,' did the gracious Lord open His Arms so wide, and bid all 1 that laboured and were heavy laden come to Him. These were the sheep, distressed and prostrate, whom to gather, that He might give them rest, He had sent forth the Seventy on a work, for which He had prayed the Father to thrust forth labourers, and which He has since entrusted to the faith and service of love of the Church. And the true wisdom, which qualified for the Kingdom, was to take up His yoke, which would be found easy, and a lightsome burden, not like that unbearable yoke of « Acts xv. 10 Rabbinic conditions ; d and the true understanding to be sought, was by learning of Him. In that wisdom of entering the Kingdom by taking up its yoke, and in that knowledge which came by learning of Him, Christ was Himself alike the true lesson and the best Teacher for those ' babes.' For He is meek and lowly in heart. He had done what He taught, and He taught what He had done ; and so, by coming unto Him, would true rest be found for the soul. These words, as recorded by St. Matthew — the Evangelist of the jews — must have sunk the deeper into the hearts of Christ's Jewish 1 MelanclitJwn writes : ' In this «« All " thou art not to search for another register thou art to include thyself, and not to of God.' think that thou dost not belong thereto ; THE EASY YOKE OF CHRIST. 143 hearers, that they came in their own old familiar form of speech, yet CHAP •with such contrast of spirit. One of the most common figurative y expressions of the time was that of 'the yoke' (^ly), for submission ^- — • — to an occupation or obligation. Thus, we read not only of ' the yoke of the Law,' but of that of ' earthly governments,' and ordinary ' civil obligations.'21 Very instructive for the understanding of the figure «Aboth.m.5 is this paraphrase of Cant. i. 10 : 'How beautiful is their neck for bearing the yoke of Thy statutes; and it shall be upon them like the yoke on the neck of the ox that plougheth in the field, and provideth food for himself and his master.' b l This yoke might be £ cast off,' as b Targum, the ten tribes had cast off that ' of God,' and thus brought on them- selves their exile.c On the other hand, to ' take upon oneself the yoke ' (biy ^lp) meant to submit to it of free choice and deliberate reso- lution. Thus, in the allegorism of the Midrash, in the inscription, Prov. xxx. 1, concerning * Agur, the son of Jakeh ' — which is viewed as a symbolical designation of Solomon — the word ' Massa,' rendered in the Authorised Version ' prophecy,' is thus explained in reference to Solomon : ' Massa, because he lifted on himself (Nasa) the yoke of the Holy One, blessed be He.' d And of Isaiah it was said, that he had been privileged to prophesy of so many blessings, ' because ed. Lemt>. P. he had taken upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven with joy.'62 And, as previously stated, it was set forth that in the eYaikutii. ' Shema.J or Creed — which was repeated everyday — the words, Deut. §275, lines 10 vi. 4—9, were recited before those in xi. 13—21, so as first generally bottom to c take upon ourselves the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and only afterwards that of the commandments.' f 3 And this yoke all f Ber. ii. 2 Israel had taken upon itself, thereby gaining the merit ever imputed to them. Yet, practically, c the yoke of the Kingdom ' was none other than that ' of the Law ' and ' of the commandments ; ' one of laborious performances and of impossible self-righteousness. It was ' unbear- able,' not 6 the easy ' and lightsome yoke of Christ, in which the Kingdom of God was of faith, not of works. And, as if themselves to bear witness to this, we have this saying of theirs, terribly signifi- ficant in this connection : ' Not like those formerly (the first), who made for themselves the yoke of the Law easy and light ; but like those after them (those afterwards), who made the yoke of the Law 1 Similarly we read of ' the yoke of in the great Academy of Jerusalem by repentance ' (Moed K. 16 &), of that 'of Elijah the prophet to a question pro- man,' or rather ' of flesh and blood ' pounded to him by a student. (Ab. de K. Nath. 20), &c. 3 Comp. ' Sketches of Jewish Social 2 This is mentioned as an answer given Life,' p. 270. 144 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK upon them heavy ! ' a And, indeed, this voluntary making of the yoke iv as heavy as possible, the taking on themselves as many obligations as « sanh 94~T P088^6? was the ideal of Rabbinic piety. There was, therefore, pecu- middie jjar teaching and comfort in the words of Christ ; and well might He * st. Luke x. add, as St. Luke reports,b that blessed were they who saw and heard these things.1 For, that Messianic Kingdom, which had been the object of rapt vision and earnest longing to prophets and kings of old, had now become reality.2 Abounding as this history is in contrasts, it seems not unlikely, « st. Luke x. that the scene next recorded by St. Luke c stands in its right place. Such an inquiry on the part of a ' certain lawyer,' as to what he should do to inherit eternal life, together with Christ's Parabolic teaching about the Grood Samaritan, is evidently congruous to the previous teaching of Christ about entering into the Kingdom of Heaven. Possibly, this Scribe may have understood the words of the Master about these things being hid from the wise, and the need of taking up the yoke of the Kingdom, as enforcing the views of those Rabbinic teachers, who laid more stress upon good works than upon study. Perhaps himself belonged to that minority, although his question was intended to tempt — to try whether the Master would stand the Rabbinic test, alike morally and dialectically. And, without at present entering on the Parable which gives Christ's final answer (and which will best be considered with the others belonging to that period), it will be seen how peculiarly suited it was to the state of mind just supposed. From this interruption, which, but for the teaching of Christ connected with it, would have formed a terrible discord in the heavenly harmony of this journey, we turn to a far other scene. It follows in the course of St. Luke's narrative, and we have no reason to consider it out of its proper place. If so, it must mark the close of Christ's journey to the Feast of Tabernacles, since the home of Martha and Mary, to which it introduces us, was in Bethany, close to Jerusalem, almost one of its suburbs. Other indications, confir- matory of this note of time, are not wanting. Thus, the history 1 In a rapt description of the Messianic &c.' It is a strange coincidence, to say glory (Pesikta, ed. Buber, 149 a, end) we the least, that this passage occurs in a read that Israel shall exult in His light, ' Lecture' on the portion of the prophets saying : ' Blessed the hour in which the (Is. Ixi. 10), which at present is read in Messiah has been created ; blessed the the Synagogues on a Sabbath close to womb that bare Him ; blessed the eye the Feast of Tabernacles, that sees Him ; blessed the eye that is 2 The same words were spoken on a deemed worthy to behold Him, for the previous occasion (St. Matt. xiii. 16), opening of His lips is blessing and peace, after the Parable of the Sower. AT BETHANY, IN THE HOME OF MARTHA AND MARY. 145 which follows that of the home of Bethany, when one of His disciples asks Him to teach them to pray, as the Baptist had similarly taught his followers, seems to indicate, that they were then on the scene of John's former labours — north-east of Bethany ; and, hence, that it occurred on Christ's return from Jerusalem. Again, from the narrative of Christ's reception in the house of Martha, we gather that Jesus had arrived in Bethany with His disciples, but that He alone was the guest of the two sisters.a We infer that Christ • st. Luke x. had dismissed His disciples to go into the neighbouring City for the Feast, while Himself tarried in Bethany. Lastly, with all this agrees the notice in St. John vii. 14, that it was not at the beginning, but ' about the midst of the feast,' that ; Jesus went up into the Temple.' Although travelling on the two first festive days was not actually unlawful, yet we can scarcely conceive that Jesus would have done so — especially on the Feast of Tabernacles ; and the inference is obvious, that Jesus had tarried in the immediate neighbourhood, as we know He did at Bethany in the house of Martha and Mary.1 Other things, also, do so explain themselves — notably, the absence of the brother of Martha and Mary, who probably spent the festive days in the City itself. It was the beginning of the Feast of Taber- nacles, and the scene recorded would take place in the open leafy booth which served as the sitting apartment during the festive week. For, according to law, it was duty during the festive week to eat, sleep, pray, study — in short, to live — in these booths, which were to be con- structed of the boughs of living trees.2 And, although this was not absolutely obligatory on women,b yet, the rule which bade all make D succ. a. 8 6 the booth the principal, and the house only the secondary dwelling,'6 «u. s.9 would induce them to make this leafy tent at least the sitting apart- ment alike for men and women. And, indeed, those autumn-days were just the season when it would be joy to sit in these delightful cool retreats — the memorials of Israel's pilgrim-days ! They were high enough, and yet not too high ; chiefly open in front ; close enough to be shady, and yet not so close as to exclude sunlight and air. Such would be the apartment in which what is recorded passed ; and, if we add that this booth stood probably in the court, we can picture to ourselves Martha moving forwards and backwards on her busy errands, and seeing, as she passed again and again, Mary still sitting a rapt listener, not heeding what passed around ; and, lastly, 1 No one who reads St. John xi. can nor hence that their home was in Bethany, doubt, that the persons there introduced 2 Comp. * The Temple and its Ser- are the Martha and Mary of this history, vices,' p. 237, &c. VOL. II. L 146 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK IV * Comp. St. Luke x. 38 how the elder sister could, as the language of verse 40 implies, enter so suddenly the Masters Presence, bringing her complaint. To understand this history, we must dismiss from our minds preconceived, though, perhaps, attractive thoughts. There is no evidence that the household of Bethany had previously belonged to the circle of Christ's professed disciples. It was, as the whole history shows, a wealthy home. It consisted of two sisters — the elder, Martha (a not uncommon Jewish name,1 being the feminine of Mar^ and equi- valent to our word ' mistress '); the younger, Mary; and their brother Lazarus, or, Laazar? Although we know not how it came, yet, evidently, the house was Martha's, and into it she received Jesus on His arrival in Bethany. It would have been no uncommon occur- rence in Israel for a pious, wealthy lady to receive a great Rabbi into her house. But the present was not an ordinary case. Martha must have heard of Him, even if she had not seen Him. But, indeed, the whole narrative implies,* that Jesus had come to Bethany with the view of accepting the hospitality of Martha, which pro- bably had been proffered when some of those ' Seventy,' sojourning in the worthiest house at Bethany, had announced the near arrival of the Master. Still, her bearing affords only indication of being drawn towards Christ— at most, of a sincere desire to learn the good news, not of actual discipleship. And so Jesus came — and, with Him and in Him, Heaven's own Light and Peace. He was to lodge in one of the booths, the sisters in the house, and the great booth in the middle of the courtyard would be the common living apartment of all. It could not have been long after His arrival — it must have been almost immediately, that the sisters felt they had received more than an Angel unawares. How best to do Him honour, was equally the thought of both. To Martha it seemed, as if she could not do enough in showing Him all hospitality. And, indeed, this festive season was a busy time for the mistress of a wealthy household, especially in the near neighbourhood of Jerusalem, whence her brother might, after the first two festive days, bring, at any time that week, honoured guests with him from the City. To these cares was now added that of doing sufficient honour to such a Guest — for she, also, deeply felt His greatness. And so she hurried to and' fro through the courtyard, literally, < distracted 4 about much serving.' 1 See Levy, Neuhebr. Worterb. ad voc. 2 Martha occurs, however, also as a male name (in the Aramaic). 3 The name Laazar (1T177) occurs fre- quently in abbreviated Talmudic writings as an form ^Klasar or Eleazar 'MARY HATH CHOSEN THAT GOOD PART.' 147 Her younger sister, also, would do Him all highest honour ; but, not as Martha. Her homage consisted in forgetting all else but Him, Who spake as none had ever done. As truest courtesy or affec- tion consists, not in its demonstrations, but in being so absorbed .in the object of it as to forget its demonstration, so with Mary in the Presence of Christ. And then a new Light, another Day, had risen upon her ; a fresh life had sprung up within her soul : ' She sat at the Lord's Feet,1 and heard His Word.' We dare not inquire, and yet we well know, of what it would be. And so, time after time — perhaps, hour after hour — as Martha passed on her busy way, she still sat listening and living. At last, the sister who, in her impatience, could not think that a woman could, in such manner, fulfil her duty, or show forth her religious profiting, broke in with what sounds like a querulous complaint : { Lord, dost Thou not care that my sister did leave me to serve alone ? ' Mary had served with her, but she had now left her to do the work alone. Would the Master bid her resume her neglected work? But, with tone of gentle reproof and admonition, the affectionateness of which appeared even in the repetition of her name, Martha, Martha — as, similarly, on a later occasion, Simon, Simon — did He teach her in words which, however simple in their primary meaning, are so full, that they have ever since borne the most many-sided application : ' Thou art careful and anxious about many things : but one thing is needful ; 2 and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.' It was, as we imagine, perhaps the first day of, or else the pre- paration for, the Feast. More than that one day did Jesus tarry in the home of Bethany. Whether Lazarus came then to see Him — id, still more, what both Martha and Mary learned, either then, or afterwards, we reverently forbear to search into. Suffice it, that though the natural disposition of the sisters remained what it had been, yet henceforth, ' Jesus loved Martha and her sister.' 1 This, instead of 'Jesus,' is the read- reading: 'but few things are needful, or ing more generally received as correct. one ' — meaning, not much preparation, 2 Few would be disposed to adopt the indeed, only one dish is necessary. T. 2 148 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. CHAPTEE VI. AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES — FIRST DISCOURSE IN THE TEMPLE. (St. John vii. 11-36.) BOOK IT was Choi ha Moed — as the non-sacred part of the festive week— IV the half-holy days were called.1 Jerusalem, the City of Solemnities, the City of Palaces, the City of beauty and glory — wore quite an- other than its usual aspect ; other, even, than when its streets were thronged by festive pilgrims during the Passover-week, or at Pente- cost. For this was pre-eminently the Feast for foreign pilgrims, coming from the farthest distance, whose Temple-contributions were then received and counted.2 Despite the strange costumes of Media, Arabia, Persia, or India, and even further ; or the Western speech and bearing of the pilgrims from Italy, Spain, the modern Crimea, and the banks of the Danube, if not from yet more strange and barbarous lands, it would not be difficult to recognise the linea- ments of the Jew, nor to perceive that to change one's clime was not to change one's mind. As the Jerusalemite would look with proud self-consciousness, not unmingled with kindly patronage, on the swarthy strangers, yet fellow-countrymen, or the eager-eyed Galilean curiously stare after them, the pilgrims would, in turn, gaze with mingled awe and wonderment on the novel scene. Here was the realisation of their fondest dreams ever since childhood, the home and spring of their holiest thoughts and best hopes — that which gave inward victory to the vanquished, and converted persecution into anticipated triumph. They could come at this season of the year — not during the winter for the Passover, nor yet quite so readily in summer's heat for Pentecost. But now, in the delicious cool of early autumn, when all harvest-operations, the gathering in of luscious fruit and the vintage were past, and the first streaks of gold were tinting the foliage, strangers from afar off, and countrymen from Judaea, Persea, and Gralilee, would mingle in the streets of Jerusalem, under the 1 Also Cholo shel Moed and Moed Katon. 2 See ch. iii. of this Book. IN JERUSALEM AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. 149 ever-present shadow of that glorious Sanctuary of marble, cedarwood, and gold, up there on high Moriah, symbol of the infinitely more glorious overshadowing Presence of Him, Who was the Holy One in the midst of Israel. How all day long, even till the stars lit up the deep blue canopy over head, the smoke of the burning, smouldering sacrifices rose in slowly-widening column, and hung between the Mount of Olives and Zion ; how the chant of Levites, and the solemn responses of the Hallel were borne on the breeze, or the clear blast of the Priests' silver trumpets seemed to waken the echoes far away ! And then, at night, how all these vast Temple- buildings stood out, illuminated by the great Candelabras that burned in the Court of the Women, and by the glare of torches, when strange sound of mystic hymns and dances came floating over the intervening darkness! Truly, well might Israel designate the Feast of Tabernacles as ' the Feast ' (haChag\ and the Jewish his- torian describe it as c the holiest and greatest.' a * Early on the 14th Tishri (corresponding to our September or early October), all the festive pilgrims had arrived. Then it was, indeed, a scene of bustle and activity. Hospitality had to be sought and found ; guests to be welcomed and entertained ; all things required for the feast to be got ready. Above all, booths must be erected everywhere — in court and on housetop, in street and square, for the lodgment and entertainment of that vast multitude ; leafy dwellings everywhere, to remind of the wilderness-journey, and now of the goodly land. Only that fierce castle, Antonia, which frowned above the Temple, was undecked by the festive spring into which the land had burst. To the Jew it must have been a hateful sight, that castle, which guarded and dominated his own City and Temple —hateful sight and sounds, that Roman garrison, with its foreign, heathen, ribald speech and manners. Yet, for all this, Israel could not read on the lowering sky the signs of the times, nor yet knew the day of their merciful visitation. And this, although of all festivals, that of Tabernacles should have most clearly pointed them to the future. Indeed, the whole symbolism of the Feast, beginning with the •completed harvest, for which it was a thanksgiving, pointed to the future. The Rabbis themselves admitted this. The strange number of sacrificial bullocks — seventy in all — they regarded as referring to * the seventy nations ' of heathendom.b The ceremony of the out- b succ. 55 b -, Pesikta, ed. JBuber, p. 1 For a full description of the Feast of Tabernacles in the days of Christ, I must *?" ' 19SVV refer to 'The Temple and its Services.' 150 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. pouring of water, which was considered of such vital importance as to give to the whole festival the name of ' House of Outpouring,' a was symbolical of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. b As the brief v>1 night of the great Temple-illumination closed, there was solemn testimony made before Jehovah against heathenism. It must have been a stirring scene, when from out the mass of Levites, with their musical instruments, who crowded the fifteen steps that led from the Court of Israel to that of the Women, stepped two priests with their silver trumpets. As the first cockcrowing intimated the dawn of morn, they blew a threefold blast ; another on the tenth step, and yet another threefold blast as they entered the Court of the Women. And, still sounding their trumpets, they marched through the Court of the Women to the Beautiful Grate. Here, turning round and facing westwards to the Holy Place, they repeated : ( Our fathers, who were in this place, they turned their backs on the Sanctuary of Jehovah, and their faces eastward, for they worshipped eastward, the sun; but we, our eyes are towards Jehovah.' ;We • sncc. v.4 are Jehovah's — our eyes are towards Jehovah.'01 Nay, the whole of this night- and morning-scene was symbolical : the Temple-illumi- natiofl, of the light which was to shine from out the Temple into the dark night of heathendom ; then, at the first dawn of morn the blast of the priests' silver trumpets, of the army of God, as it ad- vanced, with festive trumpet-sound and call, to awaken the sleepers, marching on to quite the utmost bounds of the Sanctuary, to the Beautiful Gate, which opened upon the Court of the Gentiles — and, then again, facing round to utter solemn protest against heathenism, and make solemn confession of Jehovah ! But Jesus did not appear in the Temple during the first two festive days. The pilgrims from all parts of the country — perhaps, they from abroad also — had expected Him there, for everyone would now speak of Him — ' not openly,' in Jerusalem, for they were afraid of their rulers. It was hardly safe to speak of Him without reserve. But they sought Him, and inquired after Him — and they did speak of Him, though there was only a murmuring — a low, confused dis- cussion of the pro and con in this great controversy among the ' multitudes,' 2 or festive bands from various parts. Some said : He is a good man, while others declared that He only led astray the common, ignorant populace. And now, all at once, in Choi ha 1 This second form is according to K. place in St. John, and once in St. Mark Jehudah's tradition. (vi. 33), but sixteen times in St. Luke, and 2 In the plural it occurs only in this still more frequently in St. Matthew. 'HOW DOES THIS ONE KNOW LETTERS?' 151 Moed,1 Jesus Himself appeared in the Temple, and taught. We know that, on a later occasion,* He walked and taught in ' Solo- mon's Porch,' and, from the circumstance that the early disciples aSt.John~x. made this their common meeting-place,1* we may draw the infe- f3Actgv r, rence that it was here the people now found Him. Although neither Josephus nor the Mishnah mention this 4 Porch ' by name,2 we have every reason for believing that it was the eastern colonnade, which abutted against the Mount of Olives and faced < the Beautiful Gate,' that formed the principal entrance into the * Court of the Women,' and so into the Sanctuary. For, all along the inside of the great wall which formed the Temple-enclosure ran a double colonnade — each column a monolith of white marble, 25 cubits high, covered with cedar-beams. That on the south side (leading from the western entrance to Solomon's Porch), known as the ' Eoyal Porch,' was a threefold colonnade, consisting of four rows of columns, each 27 cubits high, and surmounted by Corinthian capitals. We infer that the eastern was ' Solomon's Porch,' from the circumstance that it was the only relic left of Solomon's Temple.0 These colonnades, «/w.Ant. which, from their ample space, formed alike places for quiet walk and xx! s.V ' for larger gatherings, had benches in them — and, from the liberty of speaking and teaching in Israel, Jesus might here address the people in the very face of His enemies. We know not what was the subject of Christ's teaching on this occasion. But the effect on the people was one of general astonish- ment. They knew what common unlettered Galilean tradesmen were — but this, whence came it ? 4 How does this one know litera- ture (letters, learning),d never having learned? ' To the Jews there acomp. was only one kind of learning — that of Theology ; and only one road 24° s to it — the Schools of the Kabbis. Their major was true, but their minor false — and Jesus hastened to correct it. He had, indeed, ' learned,' but in a School quite other from those which alone they recognised. Yet, on their own showing, it claimed the most absolute submission. Among the Jews a Eabbi's teaching derived authority from the fact of its accordance with tradition — that it accurately represented what had been received from a previous great teacher, and so on upwards to Moses, and to God Himself. On this ground Christ claimed the highest authority. His doctrine was not His own invention — it was the teaching of Him that sent Him. The doctrine 1 See above, p. 148. its Johannine authorship, just as the men- 2 This, as showing such local know- tion of that Porch in the Book of Acts ledge on the part of the Fourth Gospel, points to a Jerusalem source of informa- must be taken as additional evidence of tion. 152 THE DESCENT INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION. BOOK was God-received, and Christ was sent direct from God to bring it. iv He was God's messenger of it to them. Of this twofold claim there was also twofold evidence. Did He assert that what He taught was God-received ? Let trial be made of it. Everyone who felt drawn in his soul towards God ; each one who really ' willeth to do His Will,' would know c concerning this teaching, whether it is of God,' or whether it was of man.1 It was this felt, though unrealised influence which had drawn all men after Him, so that they hung on His lips. It was this which, in the hour of greatest temptation and mental difficulty, had led Peter, in name of the others, to end the sore inner contest by laying hold on this fact : ' To whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life — and we have believed and * st. John know, that Thou art the Holy One of God.' a Marking, as we pass, that this inward connection between that teaching and learning and the present occasion, may be the deeper reason why, in the Gospel by St. John, the one narrative is immediately followed by the other, we pause to say, how real it hath proved in all ages and to all stages of Christian learning — that the heart makes the truly God-taught (' pectus facit Theologum'), and that inward, true aspiration after the Divine prepares the eye to behold the Divine Eeality in the Christ. But, if it be so, is there not evidence here, that He is the God-sent — that He is a real, true Ambassador of God ? If Jesus' teaching meets and satisfies our moral nature, if it leads up to God, is He not the Christ ? And this brings us to the second claim which Christ made, that of being sent by God. There is yet another logical link in His reasoning. He had said : ' He shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from Myself.' From Myself ? Why, there is this other test of it : ' Who speaketh from himself, seeketh his own glory ' — there can be no doubt or question of this, but do I seek My own glory ? — £ but He Who seeketh the glory of Him Who sent Him, He is true [a faithful messenger], and unrighteousness is not in Him.' Thus did Christ appeal and prove it : My doctrine is of God, and I am sent of God ! Sent of God, no unrighteousness in Him ! And yet at that very moment there hung over Him the charge of defiance of the Law of Moses, nay, of that of God, in an open breach of the Sabbath-com- mandment— there, in that very City, the last time He had been in Jerusalem ; for which, as well as for His Divine Claims, the Jews were 1 The passage quoted by Westcott from Ab. ii. 4 does not seem to be parallel. CHRIST'S DEFENCE OF HIS CLAIMS. 153 even then c seeking to kill Him.' a And this forms the transition to CHAP. what may be called the second part of Christ's address. If, in the vi first part, the Jewish form of ratiocination was already apparent, it